quote: I wonder if anyone's ever complained about the porn title rip-offs. A Clear And Pleasant Stranger, Against All Bods, Sleeping with Seattle, need I go on?
Kayla watches porn!
*shocked silence*
(I know nothing about any of those titles. And, btw, isn't "Flesh Gordon" missing from the list? It's a classic, or so someone on a street corner told me once.)
What, are you part of the leftist media, twisting words to infer your own meaning? Where did I say I watched porn? Where's the outrage from the "anti-Moorites?" What about "Manipulating the truth?" Liar, liar, pants on fire!
I have google and I know how to use it. I think there was a reference to a spoof porn title in Free Enterprise, which is why I thought of it. Or I heard about Flesh Gordon, too.
quote: I wanna know what Bigfoot's involvement was!
Depends on who you wanna believe.
According to Michael Moore, Bigfoot is the "spirit guide" for Paul Wolfowitz. According to unnamed sources, this spirit guide laid the whole Iraq strategy out for Wolfowitz while he was on peyote.
If you want to believe Rush Limbaugh, Bigfoot is currently the lead force in joining the forces of ecoterrorists with those of al-Qaeda. According to Rush, Bigfoot is running terrorist training camps in Northwest wilderness areas.
posted
And you know he doesn't have papers. I mean, he's obviously not an America, or we'd have his birth certificate. And he's not registered with the INS. And he lives alone in the woods!
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, if I were ever tempted to have a smidgen of sympathy for Moore, Mrs. M's story just relieved me of that temptation.
I think the HP quote is dead right, too. My mother always taught me the same thing. That the people who really know what sort of person you are are the ones who serve you, the waiters and hotel housekeepers and taxi drivers and desk clerks you encounter in going about your life.
People who are mean to those who are in no position to call them to account for it are the very lowest sort of people there are, aren't they? Thank goodness none of us are like that!
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
I mean, have we ever gotten a topic more off-topic that this one? I mean, we went from Michael Moore bashing to yeti-porn.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now I'm reading 4 political books at once. 2 Moore books. 1 Fraken book and Sean Hannity... Sean Hannity uses the word "evil" too much and it bothers me.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:The title business is just a tempest in a teapot. Legally Bradbury has no leg to stand on. Morally he doesn't really have one either.
That was what I guessed from the beginning, that Moore had committed no crime.
quote:In what way is this different in terms of "playing fast and loose with the truth" than what Moore is accused of? (Not that I defend either of you). The article says that Bradbury called "Moore's company", and was told Moore would call back. There is no further mention of contact until 6 months later. In reality, Bradbury was given the common corporate response and Moore was discourteous and unprofessional in not returning the call. Moore himself didn't actually promise anything. AND, you are cleverly introducing the idea that Moore denied the call was ever made, but Moore made no such denial that I could find mention of in the article. That's worthy of the best truth spinners. Congrats.
Well, thanks for crediting me with that much cunning and deviousness, Karl. What happened was that I was misread the article because I was so irritated with Moore that I didn't take in the "Moore's company" bit like I should've. So yes, when I implied that Moore personally responded to Bradbury and said he would call him back to discuss it, that was wrong and so was I. The article does not even hint at such an exchange between the two men.
As for the rest, in which I said I'd believe Bradbury over Moore even though it's still hearsay, I said that because I know Moore is a repeated, deliberate liar, and I know no such thing about Bradbury.
And thanks for the congratulations.
-----------
I think there's a difference between similar-sounding pornography names and this situation. No one really thinks, when they see "Sleeping with Seattle", that it's evocative of the Hanks / Ryan romantic comedy. They think it's a blatant rip-off of a title designed to be funny.
I don't think people think that when they go to see "Farenheit 9/11". I don't think the title was used because it was pithy, or not JUST because it was pithy. I think it was used to clothe the documentary in some of the respect and tradition Bradbury's work has, without actually being respectable and following the tradition of books such as Farenheit 451.
Yes, this is my opinion and obviously I am strongly biased. I am also aware that, legally, Moore has committed no crime. So yeah, it's a tempest in a teapot, and I'm so irritated because I already have a strong dislike for Moore. I was aware of that before.
But I also think one of my initial points-made better by others-still stands, that Moore should have had the respect and common courtesy to talk about it with Bradbury, even to say, "It's not illegal, and I'm doing it. I'm sorry you don't like it."
I suppose my ultimate frustration isn't with Moore and those like him (Limbaugh, who DOES talk as though his word was Fact), but rather with those who are snookered by them. Because Moore (and Limbaugh) convince otherwise good people into believing hateful things, and to treat contrary opinions with ridicule and contempt. Yeah, I've treated contrary opinions that way before, too. But I don't make a living out of it.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The scary thing is it seems like a lot of what he says might be true... I find that absolutely alarming and hard to absorb.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Much of what Moore says IS true, or at least is a valid opinion. But people who are marketing the truth don't need to (and don't) mix in deliberate, carefully-crafted lies, Syn.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
was away for the evening, so couldn't respond at the time...
quote: Definitions of lie on the Web:
a statement that deviates from or perverts the truth
here's the problem with that; by this definition a lie and a mistake have the same moral position. to mistakenly assert something you honestly believe to be the truth is the same as lying to manipulate someone for your own gain.
i guess what i was sort of trying to get at earlier is that to me, lying involves a conscious and intentional obscuring of the truth for malicious purposes (maybe even for benevolent purposes). I'm aware that this begins to get squishy because it requires a subjective assessment of what someone actually believes to be true, but then we're talking about morality anyway right? what i'm trying to say is that based on my interactions with moore, i suspect that he does not see what he's doing as lying, i suspect he honestly believes what he says and presents. i suspect that he is a bit paranoid, eager to find conspiracies, and less than rigorous in his process of understanding the world around him. he certainly has a habit of selectively ignoring things which do not fit into his pre-conceived ideas of what is going on. but i don't think he is lying (by the definition i gave above).
just as an aside, i've defended bush to some of my more liberal friends on these same grounds. i have no doubt that bush believes he is doing what's best for the world, and that he believed that going into iraq was necessary. people accuse the administration of misleading us in the push to war, and while that may or may not be true, i suspect they also misled themselves.
this goes back to something that was being discussed in another thread awhile ago: is ignorance a sin? is it wrong to fail to consider and give credence to opposing points of view? i would argue that believing the lies you say doesn't really get you off the hook; we each have a responsibility not only for our actions (lying, stealing, etc), but for the way we see the world. i would almost argue that we have a greater responsibility to control our understanding of the world than we do to control our actions.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
Sleeping with Seattle![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I belong to one called Not Born Yeti.
