Age is clouding his mind, otherwise he would know that Moore is continuing in his film what Bradbury started in his book. He's gone from being one of the most eloquent spokesmen against governmental tyranny to being their unwitting aide.

If any of you people cared about Ray Bradbury and his legacy, you'd want him to lay off Moore. He's just about the best defense we have right now against a power-mad administration that relies on propaganda and fear to rule and backs it up with expanded police power and censorship (see FCC vs. Stern, Rumsfeld keeping prisoners off the books, the Patriot Act).

Don't let Ray become a caricature of a tired, cranky and wrongheaded old man. His work is too important, particularly now. We can't take our inspiration from who Ray is now, but from who he was when he was still all there.

Another disgusting example of the prejudiced position of ageism. Discrimination of anyone over 45. Argue issues, not biases.

Mr Dark,
not to be mean, but since when did you stop discriminating on age issues? Why didn't you heed these words when we had a discussion? I don;t want to unearth corposes, and I'm not trying to be aggresive, but I do sometimes marvel at your slightly hipocritical method of argumentation (ie, your call for sticking to the issues was not followed by yourself, etc). Once again, this may sound like I'm trying to piss you off, but I hope you don't. There is not hate behind this note.

Cheers, Translator

BRADBURY SITE
FOCUS OF ATTACKS
BY PRO-MOORE INSURGENTS
IN SEARCH OF THOSE WHOM
THEY CAN DEVOUR

A cluster bombing of 'gnat's 'bees' and 'kamikaze crazies'... pretending to be serious individuals with the ability to post garbadge, has succeeded in the latter.

Swatting makes no dent in the swarm,
.
but a diversion to a 'forum waste land'' called
.
THE LAND OF THE LOST
.
would be the best thing moderator dandelion could devise at this time. Then anyone who are comfortable to walk knee deep in lies, untruths and distortions, insults and out and out stupidity, the uninformed, the abusive, could then move about to their hearts content.




[This message has been edited by Nard Kordell (edited 06-20-2004).]

quote:

Originally posted by Nard Kordell:
BRADBURY SITE
FOCUS OF ATTACKS
BY PRO-MOORE INSURGENTS
IN SEARCH OF THOSE WHOM
THEY CAN DEVOUR

A cluster bombing of 'gnat's 'bees' and 'kamikaze crazies'... pretending to be serious individuals with the ability to post garbadge, has succeeded in the latter.

Swatting makes no dent in the swarm,
.
but a diversion to a 'forum waste land'' called
.
THE LAND OF THE LOST
.
would be the best thing moderator dandelion could devise at this time. Then anyone who are comfortable to walk knee deep in lies, untruths and distortions, insults and out and out stupidity, the uninformed, the abusive, could then move about to their hearts content.


[This message has been edited by Nard Kordell (edited 06-20-2004).]

Stick to reading the Bible, most of these posts are beyond your christian comprehension.

Translator:

Different issue. Your claim was that you had all this experience and that experience somehow granted authority to your mature claims. I merely pointed out the obvious. You will have more experience over time. If you are open to learning, you will be wiser ten years from now than you are at present. This is not the same claim as the one that Bradbury is old, hence, he is senile and his opinion is not valid.

I don't think your attempt to tie the two issues together is valid.

It's kind of like the classic debate line between Reagon and Mondale for the US presidency . . . Mondale and his campaign had been trying to claim that Reagan was too old for the job. In the debate Reagan said he would not use age as an issue in the campaign -- he would not attack Mondale for his youth and lack of experience.

Youth, necessarily leads to inexperience. Old age does not necessarily lead to senility.

This is ageism and it has been rampant in the arguments on the Moore issue by the pro-Moore faction.

quote:

Originally posted by Mr. Dark:
Translator:

Different issue. Your claim was that you had all this experience and that experience somehow granted authority to your mature claims. I merely pointed out the obvious. You will have more experience over time. If you are open to learning, you will be wiser ten years from now than you are at present. This is not the same claim as the one that Bradbury is old, hence, he is senile and his opinion is not valid.

I don't think your attempt to tie the two issues together is valid.

It's kind of like the classic debate line between Reagon and Mondale for the US presidency . . . Mondale and his campaign had been trying to claim that Reagan was too old for the job. In the debate Reagan said he would not use age as an issue in the campaign -- he would not attack Mondale for his youth and lack of experience.

Youth, necessarily leads to inexperience. Old age does not necessarily lead to senility.

This is ageism and it has been rampant in the arguments on the Moore issue by the pro-Moore faction.

Because we are desperately trying to seize upon some logical, exonerating reason for Bradbury's defection to the dark side.

Bradbury has not gone to some dark side. This is an overblown issue. Bradbury has never called for censorship or restricted distribution of this movie. Why do so many of you not get this!!!!!!!! He's mad about Moore using the title. End of story. Bradbury has simply NOT called for censorship here. Not once. What dark side are you referring to?

Mr. Dark, I get where you're coming from quite clearly; Mr. Bradbury is upset at the use of his title, NOT at the movie or Mr. Moore. Then again, that could be because I'm "old and semi-wise!" At least, that's what I got from what I've been reading elsewhere - he wants the movie's name changed, is all, because Mr. Moore never asked permission to utilize the title Fahrenheit 451 (with minor changes to the number).