Slashdot Mirror
Moore Approves Fahrenheit 9/11 Downloads
13.7BillionYears writes "The Sunday Herald reports that Michael Moore has expressed his approval of Fahrenheit 9/11 being downloaded through networks like BitTorrent and eDonkey2000. He also champions a very Lessig-esque outlook in his reasoning. Quentin Tarantino's earlier support for such practices is also mentioned. Meanwhile, Lion's Gate says it has no plans to oppose the practice."
I saw this documentary yesterday and I was both shocked and impressed. I even cried a lot.
It's the only way to do that in the US. A documentary must be very shocking for people to care about. This doesn't work like that in Europ.
This decision from Michael Moore is not surprising as he has always said that his goal is to touch as many people as possible. I think he simply doesn't care about the money.
Besides that, I think the documentary raises some points while I think Michael Moore goes too far in some others. But this movie definitely deserves its Golden Palm.
Please, go there, watch it. Give it a chance.
Oh and I'm French and I'm living in the US so I'm ready to be modded down and insulted.
Iraq: war to save the U
The whole point of the movie is get a message out, why wouldn't he want it to reach the greatest possible audience?
personally, i would like to see more artists doing this with their works, kind of beats the companies to the punch.
Cogito Eggo Sum, I think therefore I'm a waffle
Post your torrent links here, folks!
/. torrent cluster.
Nothing says "I'm trading this" like a
Human nature is the same everywhere; the modes only are different. -- Earl of Chesterfield
This truly is a first. I am quite pleased by Moore's decision to broaden his audience by allowing free downloads of the film.
I think this would be a great place to link all your Fahrenheit 9/11 torrents!
I already saw Fahrenheit 9/11 in theatre, and it was truly amazing. I don't care if some of it was not factual, because the bulk of it is just too damn funny to worry about trivial he-said, she-said crap. Think for yourself, but also see the movie... it's amazing, imho. Quite a catalyst for provocative thought and discussion. It's not just funny, it's moving and sad, terrifying at times. The funniest parts are when they look at bush in his candid moments, when his true hick nature seeps through the $5000 suits he wears. I won't spoil it. I will say that during the film, they play audio of the 9/11 attacks over a black screen and people in the audience were crying, it was soooo moving, and sad. Now watch this drive!
So much for the MPAA... gosh it's nice to see their hands tied for a change.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
The activist, author and director told the Sunday Herald that, as long as pirated copies of his film were not being sold, he had no problem with it being downloaded.
"I don't agree with the copyright laws and I don't have a problem with people downloading the movie and sharing it with people as long as they're not trying to make a profit off my labour. I would oppose that," he said.
"I do well enough already and I made this film because I want the world, to change. The more people who see it the better, so I'm happy this is happening."
Very few people download movies to make a profit off of them. We download the movies because it is convienient to do so (ala iTunes). We also download the movies because the theatres charge entirely too much money (anywhere from $8 to $11 from what I have seen) to watch it.
Let's stop making movies with tons of computer generated special effects, bad acting, and boring plots and then blaming the pirates when it doesn't do well.
Let's make a movie that is powerful, moving, and gets people into the theatres that didn't cost $200 million to make.
here is a torrent link from suprnova(~1gb)
http://trackerwww.prq.to/download.php/3219853/Mich ael%20Moore%20About%20Filesharing.avi.torrent
But does he approve of his own lies as well?
I belive any respectable director want their movie to be watched many people as possible. In the Farenheit case this goes even further, due the political idea behind the movie.
The problem lies in the millionaries companies that produce the movies. Distributing it for free through the network isn't really interesting (profitable) for them. How long it will take to Warner to distribute a expensive movie in this way ? A long time IMHO.
While this was intended to be funny, there is some seriousness here. If I were Moore, and my goal was widest possible distribution, not most money made, putting it up for P2P download is a great idea. However, having gone to the trouble to shoot and edit the movie with high enough quality for movie projection, I'd want the highest possible quality to be downloadable. So, if he were really interested, he'd upload a copy from the original sources.
Or, maybe Moore sees P2P as an advertising medium to drive sales of movie tickets? In which case, you'd probably want a low-quality CAM capture to be floating around the net.
Michael Moore doesn't own clear copyright to F911. So, while he may approve of sharing it, his comments do not consitute a license.
http://66.90.75.92/suprnova/torrents/2031/Fahrenhe it.911.CAM-POT(1).torrentr nova/torrents/2042/Fahrenhe it911.torrent
http://66.90.75.92/sup
/^([Ss]ame [Bb]at (time, |channel.)){2}$/
Valenti said: "Nobody can allow their rights to be stolen because, if you can't retrieve your investment, you're out of the movie business..." Last time I checked, one of the "rights" of the copyright holder is the right to give those rights to others....
Fury as Fahrenheit 9/11 director backs illegal not-for-profit downloads
So hes giving people permission to download _his_ film and this is illegal how? I havnt seen it yet its either out already or comming soon to the UK but im definately gonna grab a copy, being a student and spending my entire 1st year supporting the MPAA i have to watch the budget so im probably not going to see it in the cinema unless i really really like it, but i bought his book so there! People have argued some of his facts and im sure those gun-death figures were wrong but he still gets a +point for this.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
Valenti said: "Nobody can allow their rights to be stolen because, if you can't retrieve your investment, you're out of the movie business,
"I don't think there's really a single actor or director in the world who does not believe that if you don't combat piracy, it will devour you in the future."
I've seen this happen so many times that it's the norm for me. A group of my friends used to pirate movies/music/apps/games/etc back in our early days of college. While it is true that there were many things we didn't buy, there were also many things that we DID buy. my DVD collection grew greatly during this period, as did my CD collection and the number of games that I owned. I mean hell, I had a pirated copy of Warcraft III, yet I forked over the $80 to get the special edition of the game when it came out. Yes, there are those assholes who decide that they will never buy anything, but most pirates will pay for things that they really enjoy. Thus, in my experience, Valenti's assertion that piracy is the downfall of the industry is wrong. If they produced something that everyone wants to see or own and sold it at a reasonable price, then even the pirates would go out and buy it.
http://www.google.com/search?&q=Fahrenheit+9%2F11+ torrent&btnI=I%27m+Feeling+Lucky
Just one fucking click, man. How fucking lazy are you?
Regardless of what you think of Moore's film, his statment will almost certainly boost the claim that there are legitimate non-infringing uses for peer-to-peer file sharing networks.
It's much more interesting that the studio is OK with this. I don't see how this benefits them in any way (unless all they do is activist films and don't care about their bottom line either). I'm curious to see how all this plays out.
Of course, the joke could be on us; perhaps Moore's next film will be about how downloaders are undermining the american way of life, or something to that effect. The fact that people will take time out of their busy schedules of pirating Spiderman2 and whatnot in order to download a long, mostly un-entertaining political polemic has interesting implications -- these aren't irresponsible kiddies (who couldn't care less about this stuff). These are adults who presumably have a conscience. Downloaders are everywhere.
Am I part of the core demographic for Swedish Fish?
The story says "Fahrenheit 9/11 director backs illegal not-for-profit downloads".
But if the copyright owner backs it, then it's not illegal. Moore had the copyright to begin with, since he made the flick. But wait, he signed it away! So now he has to back people illegally distributing his own brainchild?
Or maybe, just maybe, he should have thought harder before he signed away our rights to some distributor. Disney, was it not? You know.. Extend-copyrights-"temporarily" over-and-over-again-Disney? That one.
SCO employee? Check out the bounty
Normally I have the view that the owner of the work has the right to say how copyrighted works are distributed. In that light, 99% of the piracy going on these days IS wrong.
That being said, in the article, Jack Valenti is bleating on about how anybody who downloads any copyrighted work is an infringer/pirate/theif. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but Moore has assigned distribution rights (ahem, COPY rights) to LGF, which should have final say as to how the work can be copied. LGF is basically saying "go at it", something which it has every right to do.
(Moore, on the other hand, does not have the right to officially say who can legally download what (since he does not hold distribution rights on his own movie, like nearly any movie/song), but thankfully his views and LGF's views are the same, so the point is moot.)
So in the broadest view, how is this even REMOTELY considered wrong?
Michael Moore doesn't own the rights to the movie, Harvey and Bob Weinstein do. Even if Michael Moore doesn't care if his movie is pirated, I'm pretty sure the distributors do. At best, this can put your conscience at rest but it definitely doesn't mean you can start hosting the illegal copy in your website and expect not to get a cease and desist.
Yeah, I know, torrents are different, and slashdot isn't responsible for what we post. You, however, seem to be thinking that it's now legal to download F911 when saying, "I am quite pleased by Moore's decision to broaden his audience by allowing free downloads of the film." He's not really allowing them, he's just saying he doesn't morally disagree with the practice.
Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.
ill bite,
Michaeal Moore as an agent of the company which owns the copyright has authorized the duplication of the said work. Any action brought against a sharer would be thrown out of court in light of Moore's public invitation to trading.
The linked article was written by Dave Kopel a former Assistant Attorney General of Colorado. He is a libertarian. Like Michael Moore, he endorsed and voted for Ralph Nader in the last election, so he's hardly a firebreathing Republican (though some of the magazine he publishes in are right-wing)
When I'm singing a ballad and a pair of underwear lands on my head, I hate that. It really kills the mood.
-Tom Jones
[1] An interview with an Iraqi woman where the subtitles are off the bottom of the screen.
Wow. I've thought that I would give away my record (when it's done) to those who would want to download it, but frankly, I never thought that I'd see a comment like that from a movie maker, whose movie is currently in theaters.
That is a bold move, and probably making Jack Valenti spin in his grave.
Oh, he's not dead yet? Well, I guess you can't have everything...
Second, this is a movie people want to see in a theater, and a movie people probably want to have a decent copy of to show friends. Although this is a movie one might see to be in with a peer group, that is not the only reason.
And so I think, politics aside, this is the way movies should be made. The buzz should be consistant with the movie, and should create a community of viewers that will propel the product. It would also be nice if studios would make the theater more of a partnet, so that the theaters once more cared about the viewing experience, instead of how much popcorn they can sell, or how many viewing they can fit in a day.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
Then why doesn't he release a decent copy of his movie on the internet to begin with. This copy that everyone is getting the torrent for is not only a really crappy cam version, from what I've read elsewhere it is not even a complete copy of the film. Its missing the whole bit about the Patriot Act from what I hear. At least put out decent stuff if you want people to view it.
Better yet, where the torrent tools?
My favorite is Azureus although it uses java and is a resource hog.
Original client--no bells or whistles
Experimental client with some speed controls
I know I am probibly going to get modded down for this, but there are serious mistakes in this movie, and they were willfully made. For a comprehensive list of the problems with this movie, check out this. Mod me down if you are afraid of the truth, but this needs to be mentioned.
"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."
F911 is 100% documentary. If you deny that, you don't know what a documentary is, and you probably haven't seen many. "Hoop Dreams", "Fog of War", and "Mr. Death" are all documentaries with a point of view, albeit a benign and non-controvbersial one.
I've read all the attacks on the film...none of them point to any factual errors. What the F911-detractors don't like is that Moore presents certain facts to make a point. "We invaded Afghanistan" and "Afghanistan's natural gas pipeline was built very quickly." Moore puts these facts in proximity to imply we invaded partly for oil. You can't deny the facts, but the implication is debatable.
If he were crying about his copyright being infringed, he would have been labelled as a rank hypocrite.
CEE5210S The signal SIGHUP was received.
The IMDB average of the movie is 7.8. If you limit the votes to US voters (Because who cares about Europeans anyway), the average is 7.6.
1355 Americans gave it a "1". 93 gave it a "2". I'm not sure what to think of those numbers. Of course, any accusation of "voting by principle" can also be applied to the other end of the scale.
I shall go and tell the indestructible man that someone plans to murder him.
How is anyone giving him money if they download and watch the film. Even if you don't want to see it, those that do and download it aren't giving him one thin dime. This sort of overcomes the Neocon's objections that it's all about the money, although I'm sure they'll counter that Moore waited until the box office revenues peaked to make the pronouncement.
CEE5210S The signal SIGHUP was received.
From your sig web site:
"These heretics do not believe in the lethal AIDS virus called HIV. They claim that the virus is indeed harmless. Most of them think AIDS is also not sexually transmitted; it probably has toxic causes. People die because they are poisoned to death by toxic antiviral drugs."
Yes, genius, tens of millions of Africans are being poisoned by the antiviral drugs they're not taking.
If Moore's film were actually full of shit, like you say, then people would just ignore it like hundreds of other documentaries. Since it has millions of Republican's panties in a bunch, it must be doing something right. People only get this defensive when they know deep down inside that they're wrong.
-B
Does Moore own the film? Why didn't he put it in the public domain if he doesn't like copyright?
If Moore is against Copyright, he should make a film about the DMCA, the Sonny-Bonno copyright extention act, software patents, and similar freedom-inhibiting laws. That kind of film could really make a difference.
Make even shorter URLs - 8LN.org
No, but it gives you a nice affirmative defense against any copyright "crime" that requires the prosecution to prove intent.
CEE5210S The signal SIGHUP was received.
Here's one of your "Deceits":
Deceit 8:
Fahrenheit mocks President Bush for continuing to read a story to a classroom of elementary school children after he was told about the September 11 attacks.
What Moore did not tell you:
Gwendolyn Tose'-Rigell, the principal of Emma E. Booker Elementary School, praised Bush's action: "I don't think anyone could have handled it better." "What would it have served if he had jumped out of his chair and ran out of the room?"...
She said the video doesn't convey all that was going on in the classroom, but Bush's presence had a calming effect and "helped us get through a very difficult day."
"Sarasota principal defends Bush from 'Fahrenheit 9/11' portrayal," Associated Press, June 24, 2004.
Yeah. That's a "deceit". The real deceit here is the idea that the only two choices available are to sit there retardedly reading My Pet Goat, making an entire elementary school of kids targets, or to jump up and scream "Holy bejeezers kids! We're ALL GONNA DIEE!!!!"
He could've calmly told the kids that he had to go do some of the things that Presidents do, thanked them, and left.
Bush shouldn't even have gone into that school that day. He was told the first plane hit the WTC *before* he went in. The WTC had already been hit by terrorist attack in 1996, and he'd already been briefed that al Qaeda were planning on hijacking airplanes. This is 1 + 1 kind of thinking, especially if you're the man charged with protecting the United States.
The sheer bizarreness of a loaded jetliner crashing into the WTC ought to have been enough to get him to delay his photo op and wait for more information. He didn't.
Face it, he was asleep at the wheel that day. If you supposedly value honesty so much, at least be honest with yourself.
The ip may change, so YMMV
That said, you should also keep in mind that films do not need to be documentaries to show you the truth, or at least a given version of truth. That is what art is all about.
This flick is supposed to make people think. About something they haven't been exposed to. All you have done is spent the last week coming up with HA HA donut references.
Do I need a movie to tell me that Bush is a prick, and shouldn't be running the country, much less a goddamn lemonade stand? NO.
Bush and his pals have done more to ruin this country than any terrorists. You can read about many of the results here on /. everyday. Sadly, there's plenty of people who have their head in their ass and actually think that George Bush CARES ABOUT THEM.
I feel for you that this movie didn't appeal to your heightened sense of art, like Highlander 12: Back in the Habit did.
You are a fine example of the brainwashed - rejecting out of hand anything that can't be reconciled with your little mass-media worldviews. Congrats.
Don't bother, the only release is a shitty cam in theatre job.
1355 Americans gave it a "1". 93 gave it a "2". I'm not sure what to think of those numbers. Of course, any accusation of "voting by principle" can also be applied to the other end of the scale.
I have to say that the IMDB poll on this movie is likely useless infomation because there will be some Democrats giving the movie a "10" and some Republicans giving the movie a "1" despite neither group having ever actually seen the film.
Since it's impossible to sort out those biases from people who really saw the movie, it's impossible to correct the number.
People hear the word "documentary" and they can only think of National Geographic and the Discovery Channel. Every big newspaper has a page of opinion columns. The goal of that page is to present well thought out arguments from different viewpoints. Think of Farenheit 9/11 as an opinion column using film instead of text. It's still a documentary.
-B
Since I know the claims he made in the movie, and these claims can be fact-checked independently of seeing the movie, why is this not "thinking for myself"?
Because you *can't* know all the claims he made in the movie unless you've seen the movie, or at least read the script. If you're going by what other people are saying about it, then you're getting a second-hand version - they're not going to present all the points, only the ones they picked up on, and they're not going to present them how Moore presented them, they're going to present their own take on them.
For example, reading a critique of the movie isn't good enough, even if you go away and check all the points the critic made and make sure that he's right and the things he claims the movie got wrong are wrong - because you only have his word for it that that's what the movie said, and he'll probably have left out things the movie got right.
And reading a positive review isn't good enough, even if you go away and check all the points the reviewer made, and make sure that all the things he claims the movie got right are right - because you only have his word for it that that's what the movie said, and he'll probably have left out things the movie got wrong.
And even if you read both, you still can't be sure that you have the full story.
Primary sources, Loundry, primary sources. You can't fact-check other people's reports of something - you have to go back to the primary source if you want to know whether what it's saying is true or not.
Saying it's not a documentary does not make its content false. Not if you say it a thousand times or more.
I'm not a Bush supporter or a Moore hater - I often disagree with both. But I know which has integrity and which doesn't.
Okay, now you have me. Which one did you say has integrity?
"Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"
Moderation Totals: Wrong=2, Stupid=3, Total=5.
There is no such thing in that stories about Hey dude!!! pirating is OK. There is a cold logic behind Moore's warm aproval...
And the logic is simple: This movie is a COUNTER-PROPAGANDA. More people will see it, More people will be against Bush administration.
By the way, im sure that Moore's wish his movie to be broadcast on national television
"Insanity in individuals is something rare, but in groups, parties, nations, and epochs it is the rule." - Nietzsche
I don't understand why the entire world suddenly thinks that documentary = journalism, or documentary = cinema verite.
Documentaries certainly have points of view, and they always have. At least Moore's is blatant; the "objective" documentaries *still* have some slant, because they are made by humans and humans have opinions.
You have violated Robot's Rules of Order and will be asked to leave the future immediately.
The bittorrent client available at ei.kefro.st is banned on many trackers because it's over a year outdated. Use BitTornado instead.
There is a big difference between someone who *is* French and someone who *speaks* French. Quebeckers do not consider themselves to be French, they feel they are distinct in their own right. This sentiment is the cause of the separatist movement. That movement is calling for the breakup of Canada which is the cause of animosity. No that they speak French.
It's the distributors' movie, And they don't want it downloaded.
Have you ever been happy? Don't give examples, HOW DO YOU MEASURE IT?
If you want to see what qualifies as "ruining people's lives" rent the film Roger & Me.
Why am I bothering to debate someone who doesn't believe that AIDS exists? You're a fucking idiot.
-B
Um, WTF are you talking about? The POT release is *the* worst, most amateur cam release I've ever seen in my life, ever. The image is framed terribly (you're missing a big portion of the screen), it constantly flickers, the sound is almost inaudible, and to add insult to injury, they used *3* wrong formats distributing the thing. They rar'd iso's of VCDs? 1 gig? WTF? Distribute a 250 meg DIVX and let the lamers still using VCDs transcode it themselves.
Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley
Without French naval assistance at the battle of Yorktown, General Cornwallis would have escaped, and the Americans would not have inflicted a crushing blow against the Brittish occupation of the colonies. Indeed, the Brittish themselves would probably have slaughtered American resistance long before without money, arms, and supplies from king Louis VI.
While the U.S. has oftentimes been at odds with French policy, we must remember that the U.S. exists mostly due to the efforts of France.
So as my country celebrates the Star Spangled Banner today, perhaps we should spend a few moments listening to the Marseillaise as well.
Hello! I'm your friendly pseudophilosophy bullshit meter. I rate my parent post at a 9.8 out of a possible 10!
Grandparent was initiating his response with a statement of contrary belief. It's not an argument. Not only is it okay, its the correct way to begin a critique.
Again, this clause is not an argument, nor does it attempt to unjustifiably make fun of you. He is stating, by his argument, that if you do not believe Fahrenheit 9/11 to be a documentary, then you do not understand what it is to be a documentary. It's the same as saying "If you do not think the world revolving around the sun is heliocentricity, then you do not know what heliocentricity means."
Now, if you read the rest of his post, you'd find his argument. His argument is that the movies cited are widely accepted as being documentaries, and since Fahrenheit 9/11 displays more characteristics of a documentary than these movies, a fortiori, it is a documentary.
If you want to attack his argument, that's it. Throwing around incorrect uses of informal fallacies isn't going to help you much.
I think the problem is that documentary means "facts" and "objective" not 'opinion'. The thing may very well be one particular person's interpretation of the facts, but that doesn't make it a documentary. I would think the facts would have to be independently researched, verified, and agreed upon by most people in order to really call it a documentary.
Morphing Software
Well I'm not the Original Poster but I'd say using 3rd world labor for pennies on the hour to make clothes would be a good example of "ruining peoples lives". Many American and European corporations do just that.
I'd say strip mining for coal or logging without replacing trees is a good example of ruining the environment.
If you are looking for someone to define a line as to what is "too far" in either circumstance, you'll be disappointed to find that the world is not a black and white place and that each case must be looked at individually to find out.
If the French hadn't supported the American Independence in 1776 there's a great chance that America would still be part of the United Kingdom. ( An Outline of American History - Chapter 3: The Road to Independence )
while (!asleep()) sheep++
You lefties have a strange definition of patriotism.
Patriotism: Love of and devotion to one's country.
Now, where does Moore say he doesn't like his country?
I can only see him objecting to his country's government. Maybe he go as far as to make documentaries about it because he cares so much for his country and that it's properly run?
Moore doesn't want a president that's in a school browsing a book when USA is attacked by Al-Qaida. That's what this is all about.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
That was the French monarchy. The complaints are usually aimed at the cowardice and weakness of the French republic which didn't emerge for at least a decade after that (1789?).
Do NOT download this CAM! If you look here you will see that people who have seen both versions have reported that there is at least 20 minutes missing from the middle of the movie! This is a critical part too. Sorry Vcdquality.
What post? The one you're carrying inside your rusty innards!
How can you "be specific" and not give examples? Apparently you want to make it impossible to answer your question. I'll do it anyway but I can't see a way around breaking your rules.
Outsourcing, it's easy to measure, just count the jobs that have gone overseas that could have easily been done here. Low minimum wage, below the poverty level is unacceptable. Unsafe work conditions, exposure to harmful materials and dangerous equipment should be closely regulated. This means that if you are working with something than can kill you, you should be properly protected and notified of the possible harm.
What qualifies and quantifies "ruining the environment"? Be specific. Don't give examples. I want to know how you measure it.
That's easy. Just look at the blatant disregard for the envrionment that anyone who drives an H2 has. Those trucks should not even be legal to produce. Dumping harmful chemicals into into drinking water or the ocean. This isn't something you have to quantify. It just shouldn't be done for obvious reasons. This is not an emotional response, it is a scientific one.
Time makes more converts than reason
Believe me, I'd love to see a small DivX or Xvid rip, but can you see lamers using transcode?
The reason so many CAM and TeleSync rips are distributed as VCDs is for the convenience of end users - 'hang the quality, let's get it out there and get people watching it'. And with TV resolution at 352x288, who can blame them?
The multipart rar-chives? Well, from what I've been told, it's to let a legion of 0wnz0red boxes on xDSL connections be as useful as a single big server on a T3, by distributing the bandwidth requirement. I agree though, it's still very annoying, especially on a slow machine (takes time to unroll) or with low disk space (effectively, you need double the space to d/l and then unroll).
Let it be known, this 'Screener' is a Cam. It does have a menu and chapters though. But half way through it stops and you have to manually go to the next chapter.
Moore is good at what he does: propagandize. A thorough, well-researched, well-written essay on the topic would probably be more informative than a movie, but it would also be a lot more boring. Moore can "reach" a lot more (stupid) people with a movie that has lots of "scary" and "touching" scenes.
Argument by assertation, um... false dilemmas (essay good, movie bad)..ad hominem there too.
I think he does care about money, as his not-quite-middle-class lifestyle would suggest. In this case, more people being swayed to his cause is worth more to him in the long run than some quick cash. He has his priorities in order.
If advocate of sub-wealthy then themselves sub-wealthly. If not subwealthy, then not an advocate of subwealthy. One of those if A = B, then if not A, not B or vice versa. Complicated, but a non sequitor nonetheless.
Answer me this: if I make a movie that has loads and loads of fabricated bullshit, but I make a lot of people cry with it, does it deserve a Golden Palm? Is being "moving" and "passionate" more important than being factual and reasonable? It sounds like you think the answer ot that question is yes, though I imagine that you would qualify it with a statement like, "...yes, but only if the said movie advances the superstitious beliefs that I adhere to!"
You are forcing the the interviewee to accept your premises before asnwering your question. You are begging the question.
No, thank you. The movie is based on presuppositions that I reject. You can't get a true conclusion from a false premise, so why should I waste my time seeing this pile o' poo? To see some "moving" scenes? There are plenty of movies that provide that without having to endure stupid, Leftist progaganda.
Um.. appeals to emotion flambee. A veritable buffet of ad hominem.
Isn't it obnoxious when people just point out logical fallacies and then run away to spread their own brand of fallacious, captious reasoning elsewhere? What logical fallacy am I perpetrating here?
With the 4th of July ahead, I thought it is time to watch Fahrenheit 9/11. At first I was surprised that this documentary won the first price in Cannes this year, but now I have to admit, "i'm lovin' it".
Although I can't agree with some of his conclusions. I like the way he leads us, especially Americans themselves, to remember and think about some very important issues. Going thru numerous points of why the "war-president" is wrong. Moore, at the end, finds a wonderful quote* on what may be the true reason:
"It does not matter if the war is not real. For when it is, victory is not possible. The war is not meant to be won, but it is meant to be continuous."
"A hierarchical society is only possible on the basis of poverty and ignorance, this new version is the past and no different past can ever have existed. In principle the war effort is always planned to keep society on the brink of starvation. The war is waged by the ruling group against its own subjects and its object is not the victory over either Eurasia or east Asia but to keep the very structure of society in tact" *...George Orwell's 1984
>> Had I been going to bed earlier every night? Have I been sleeping later? Has Tyler been in charge longer and l
Hello! I'm your friendly pseudophilosophy bullshit meter. I rate my parent post at a 9.8 out of a possible 10!
Hi! I'll be happy to rate your rating. I'm a meta-friendly-peudophilosophy-bullshit-meter.
Grandparent was initiating his response with a statement of contrary belief. It's not an argument. Not only is it okay, its the correct way to begin a critique.
I would accept that if:
1. Poster gave some statements in support of this position, and
2. Poster left out the "100%"
Since the poster merely made a statment and tried to "punch it up" by adding the "100%", I judge this to be argument by assertion.
Again, this clause is not an argument, nor does it attempt to unjustifiably make fun of you. He is stating, by his argument, that if you do not believe Fahrenheit 9/11 to be a documentary, then you do not understand what it is to be a documentary.
Ad hominem does not necessarily imply that the opponent must be "unjustifibly made fun of", as you claim. (I'd be interested to know what you think a "justified" mocking of one's opponent would be. Surely you're not going to sway many minds with *that* tactic!) By stating that if you do not believe Fahrenheit 9/11 to be a documentary then opponent does not understand what it is to be a documentary, poster is stating one of the following:
1. opponent is stupid (ad hominem)
2. opponent is uneducated (ad hominem)
3. opponent chose to believe false information (ad hominem)
Now, if you read the rest of his post, you'd find his argument.
Sorry, I couldn't get past his fallacies that you've failed to defend. But I'll go ahead and critique the rest.
His argument is that the movies cited are widely accepted as being documentaries,
"Widely accepted"? This is ad numeram or perhaps even ad verecundiam, depending on who is doing the "accepting".
and since Fahrenheit 9/11 displays more characteristics of a documentary than these movies, a fortiori, it is a documentary.
And yet poster failed to provide for us what he considers to be "characteristics of a documentary". Certainly those would be up for debate.
If you want to attack his argument, that's it.
I did! Poster didn't have much of an argument to attack. I dislike considering the arguments of those who can't seem to begin their argument without throwing in a couple of stupid, flawed arguments at the get-go. Doesn't that seem like a waste of time? You, however, are much more interesting.
Throwing around incorrect uses of informal fallacies isn't going to help you much.
I agree! Likewise, attacking the proper enumeration of informal fallacies with flawed arguments of your own will not convince me to your point of view.
Oh, I have to rate your rating. I rate it: not impressive.
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
I would have to agree... I've never seen as much animosity towards the French among the general Canadian population as I've seen from a lot of Americans.
The animosity towards Quebecois has nothing to do with the French. They're totally different; different culture, different language (well, dialect). The hatred of the Quebecois isn't all that strong. It's mainly joking around, just like we do with the Newfies (People from Newfoundland). And in the great nation to the north, we tend to make fun of everyone from different parts of the country.
We are a nation that can laugh at ourselves and make friendly ribbings.
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use." - Soren Kier
This is very similiar to the right wing's "trust" in "free market" forces to benevolently serve the best interets of man with minimal, if any regulation. It's also very similar to the right's clinging to "trickle down" economic policies, that have zero evidence of working better than the more standard alternatives. It's ALSO very similiar to the right's belief that you can leglislate morality without causing more harm than you solve.
The sooner you realize that both wings of ideology are not rational in their beliefs, the sooner you can realize that both have some very valid portions in their arguements, and you can start sifting out the bullshit without having to assume left = hippy and right = nazi.
rejecting "leftism wholesale" is exactly the kind of unthinking, superstitious, emotional response you are attacking.
He owns the copyright.
He can give permission to copy and distribute to whomever he damn well pleases, and nobody else that he has given such license to (eg, the distributors you mention) can do a thing about it unless there had already been an exclusivity contract between Michael and these distributors, which considering Mr Moore just gave his approval for downloading the movie isn't likely, since his making this statement on the record like this would set him up for an absolutely _massive_ lawsuit (and Michael Moore is no idiot, which is why I dismiss it as improbable)
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
And it's about getting John Kerry elected. This is a pretty blatant violation of campaign finance laws hiding under the blanket of being a "documentary". I'm sure Moore is getting quite the kickback from Mrs. Heinz-Kerry and her husband to bring this movie out right now. The funny thing is that most people have already forgotten about F-9/11 and are going to see Spider-Man 2 instead. Only the most die-hard liberals and/or America-haters even bother to see this mockumentary.
Unfortunately you won't see this comment since the moderators will kill it in a few minutes, but I kind of expect that with the liberal slant here. The truth needs to get out though.
He never argued the point of it not being a documentary, he made a statement of belief. In attempting to refute the original post, however, an argument as to why the initial assertion is incorrect would be required to establish validity, at which point the original poster, should he or she choose, could respond by defending his point (or allow the refutation to stand).
However, by essentially debating the original post with, "yes it is," you harken back to playground tactics.
Kid A: My poop doesn't smell
Kid B: Yes it does!
Kid A: No way!
Kid B: Does too
Kid A: Not ah. Take it back!
Now if Kid B wanted to win his argument, he would provide undeniable proof at this point:
Kid B: Does too, I smelled it, and it was yucky.
Kid A: Dude... You smelled my poop...
Kid B: Well, I wanted to...
Kid A: That's disgusting, what's wrong with you...
(Chorus: Poop-sniffer, Poop-sniffer...)
And so it goes. He wins, but at the cost of being ostracized as a poop-sniffer.
Opinionated Law Student Strikes Again!
13.7BillionYears writes "The Sunday Herald reports that Michael Moore has expressed his approval of Fahrenheit 9/11 being downloaded through networks like BitTorrent and eDonkey2000. He also champions a very Lessig-esque outlook in his reasoning. Quentin Tarantino's earlier support for such practices is also mentioned. Meanwhile, Lion's Gate says it has no plans to oppose the practice."
Nobody said it is...
Not that it really matters.
1 - Until Kerry accepts the nomination there exist no federally imposed limits on his spending. Those that exist after the nomination are voluntary though candidates are monetarily encouraged to accept them. Therefore, even if 911 ended with "I'm John Kerry and I approved this message" it's still perfectly justifiable as far as political speech goes.
2 - Documentaries have an opinion. We're socialized to believe otherwise because our first exposure to documentaries is generally in elementary school with a discussion of how babies are made, the discovery of America by Christopher Columbus, or the formation of stars or some such. Of course, all these documentaries have an opinion as well. Many would argue that the babies films indicate a difference between a fetus and a baby. It's worth noting that Columbus wasn't even the first European to set foot in the Americas and that many prefer Genesis to the gravitational condensation of gas as the reason stars form. (Wow, worst run on sentence ever)
3 - Integrity? Moore said he was producing a film that accused Bush of all kinds of insidious things. He produced the film. Gotta at least take the man at his word. Bush, on the other hand, pledged to reduce the size of the federal government and refrain from engaging in "Nation building." Hmmmm.... guess one of these two has been caught in a lie to two.
I'm not saying Moore's film isn't misleading. I'm not saying it's not propaganda. There is an art to arranging facts in a certain way so as to prove a point. There is a finesse in accomplishing that task in such a way as to leave your audience with an opinion that you never actually stated. Moore is a master of this technique. Nothing, and I say that after an appreciable amount of investigation, in Moore's film is untrue. Nonetheless, he has artfully arranged things to imply more than he says. Those implications are opinion, not fact. A wary observer will note the difference.
As for journalistic... your local newspaper publishes an editorial section. That's journalism too.
Killfile(TGK)
No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
yeah, questioning your leaders is definitely treason.
In a country in which more than 40% of the voters have been so disenfranchised that they don't even bother to vote anymore, and a significant portion of the rest feel trapped into voting for the "lesser of two evils" in election after election, I would think questioning and challenging such a system that is supposed to be "Of, By and For the People" and is plainly NOT would be considered quite patriotic.
But then, I guess any level of discussion of our government in negative terms is only ok if it involves a democratic president getting a blowjob, right? Certainly we have no room to be negative when we're at war, even if we can't generate one solid reason as to why we are at war and what good we are actually doing in a country that never threatened us directly, while giving up on and letting run free a terrorist that has attacked us several times including the largest foreign attack on our soil ever, who happens to be related to the business partners of our president.
Obviously our priorities are out of whack for questioning that. What ARE we thinking?
Lets do a brief recap here:
6 679/K=diplomatic+relati ons+libya/v=2/SID=w/l=WS1/R=1/H=0/*-http://www.cnn .com/2004/WORLD/meast/06/28/libya.us.ap
a 22 .shtml
Circa late 90s the Republican party spear heads a big campaign to impeach to Bill Clinton based upon the fact that he scored a BJ from a Intern and lied about it.
Flash forward to now:
The United States goes to war with a country that has been under some form of embargo/watch for over 10 years based upon the premise that they have nukes (which turns out later to be false). People in power who are blatant supporters of the military action (Bush, Powell, Rice...etc) are televised several times prior to the war stating that Iraq has no weapons of significance (WOMD) and suddenly tell us the exact opposite of what we were told before. This can't be disputed.
Now, had this been a Democrat in office of any kind, you can bet your ass the Republican part would be trying to get a impeachment right about now. There would have been a ton of huge investigations where they broke out a microscope and shoved it up whatever Democrats ass they could find to dig up as much dirt as possible.
What is happening in the US today makes ZERO sense. For example, under primarily a Republican led government:
1. We are establishing ties with one of the Worlds most well documented terrorists...Kadaffi.
http://rds.yahoo.com/S=276
2. Under the guise of cracking down on terrorism, we attack a country that obviously has nothing and is just a bunch of poor people who have suffered enough abuse. And in this, we ignore well documented terrorist hot beds such as Egypt. It is a well known fact that many terrorist groups have ties to Egypt. In fact, the Islamic Jihad was founded in Egypt. What about Pakistan? Why was so little done in Afghanistan? This was supposed to be about terrorism right? It's obviously not. But under Republican rule, this sort of deception appears to be acceptable practice. We can send people off to die under false pretenses and nobody is held accountable for this. And we continue to send people over and nobody really is clear for what. If that had been a Democrat, you can bet there would have been a motion to impeach.
And with that being said, nobody is doing anything about this. Nobody is doing anything to stop this madness. Everybody is just in a waiting mode to see when it will end. What people don't realize is the US is now in the last stages of it's available military personnel. It will start doing a draft next.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/apr2004/draf-
And for what? Why is the US even at war? Nobody knows. And the majority of America doesn't even realize the seriousness of what is happening here. People need to wake up and they need to do so now.
The MPAA really needs some better PR people. I'm on Michael Moore's side, but the MPAA has an easy response to his stand on piracy.
Michael Moore:
"I do well enough already and I made this film because I want the world, to change. The more people who see it the better, so I'm happy this is happening."
The correct response from the MPAA should be something along the lines of:
"While we are happy that Michael Moore's films have brought him financial success, we are disappointed in his apparent lack of empathy for the movie theatre employees who rely on box-office ticket sales for their much more modest incomes."
Again, my views are in line with Michael Moore's regarding fair use, but I'm still capable of recognizing valid arguments against that position.
So where are the primary sources? I read a few of the example deceits and the author is using as evidence what historians call secondary sources. These are documents that have been once (or more) removed from the situation. He references newspaper and editorials, but never himself interviews the subjects. By doing this, the author allows that he has no more solid footing than Moore and in many ways less due to the film used by Moore.
If you're going to refute a person's work, then take the time to go to primary sources; the victims, the subjects, the documents, etc., and present them for review.
Huh?
Thats a good point. Also, you have to keep in mind that a lot of people might not even give this film a chance in the theatre if they have to pay for it. However, Moore can help spread his propaganda (which, truth or not, it is - its a blatantly political movie that supports the "anyone but Bush" movement) to a much wider audience, thereby better accomplishing one of his goals in making this movie. Those goals would be as follows:
1) Make money (the movie is already profitable)
and
2) Make people hate the current administration.
Now, whether you like him or not, you have to admit, this is pretty genius. He's already made plenty of bank on this film, and now, he's going to be able to spread it to people who are either too cheap to go see it in the theatre, or perhaps, politically opposed to himself.
Opinionated Law Student Strikes Again!
It is only strange if believe the republicans' redefinition of patriotism to mean 'support for the Bush administration'.
You know a movie has substance when people who haven't seen it are attacking it. The thing that has the Republicans scared is how this movey HAS swayed the American public already. There is report after report of staunch Republicans coming out of the movie saying that they can't support Bush.
Bush had better pardon himself for war crimes before he leaves office -- otherwise he may get a knock on the door. Maybe not now or in the near future, but the people of the world will not forget what his administration has done.
...but Quisling was the leader of the Norwegian "Nasjonal Samling" party, a Norwegian party that agreed with Hitler's ideals. That'd make him right wing. Extreme ring wing.
Actually, don't correct me. I know I'm correct already.
-- Even if a god did exist, why the fsck should I worship it?
So I downloaded F9/11. Big deal. I was also at the front of the line to buy tickets to go see it on Friday. Further, when (if Disney allows) it comes out on DVD, I will buy a copy. I will buy two, actually, and send the second one to my right-wing pro-Bush in-laws just to piss them off.
Just because I downloaded the movie (for fear that it wouldn't be shown in my small town (which it very nearly wasn't)), doesn't mean I deprived anyone of anything.
How appropriate. You fight like a cow.
I'd also like to see the audience breakdown from the first week. I haven't seen that yet. I saw it plastered around that the movie was packed even in "Republican strongholds." Well, of course. Even in Republican strongholds you have at least thousands of Democrats, and when you have the film showing on only a few screens it doesn't take many Democrats eager to see a "slam Bush" movie to fill the theater. It would be interesting to see if someone went on opening weekend and polled the peopl in line for their party affiliation. That would be a lot more interesting than "soldout shows in Republican strongholds" which is nothing more than a sound-byte.
If anyone has a link to that kind of poll, please let me know. I'd be interested in seeing it.
Warning: there may be a few minor "spoilers" here, but nothing you couldn't handle.
I read through the list and, though some of the points are highly interesting (for example, the "My Pet Goat" scene [by the way, the book is actually called "The Pet Goat", so I guess Michael Moore tried to deceive us again!] and how the teacher actually comended Bush's actions), most of the points are irrelevant. Take the one straight off the top. Fahrenheit 9/11 opens with a scene of Ben Affleck, Al Gore, etc. all celebrating under a banner that says "Florida Victory". The link you sent us to points out that the celebration was pre-election results in Florida and that Michael Moore is thus deceitful in trying to paint it like it's not.
But the stakes of the claim are zero. Who cares if it was pre-election? It's not deceitful, it's a matter of making a movie that's interesting. What is important, in the documentary, are the real facts asserted. For example, if the scene where members of congress futilely protested Bush's appointment to the presidency turned out to be fake or something, then an important argument had been made.
Plus, some of the "Deceit" claims are just plain ol' wrong. For example: "Moore Claimed that Osama bin Laden Might be Innocent and Opposed the Afghanistan War". I saw the movie a few days ago, and I don't think I forgot or missed much, but at no point of time do I remember Moore making the claim in the movie. Outside the movie, he didn't claim Osama bin Laden was innocent, but that the American way means we have to assume so until the facts come out against him. When Christopher Hitchens said "Something--I cannot guess what, since we knew as much then as we do now--has since apparently persuaded Moore that Osama Bin Laden is as guilty as hell", he's full of it. We obviously have learned a lot more since the initial September 11 attacks, including more evidence to implicate Osama bin Laden. That may have fulfilled Moore's requirements for "till proven guilty".
The list goes on and on. Much of the "deceits" consist of agreeing that what Moore says is right (about the PATRIOT act, for example) but then saying "well, Clinton was involved/did something similar/etc" which is a common defense to any criticism of the Bush administration. Just because someone crticizies the Bush administration doesn't mean they love Clinton. Moore included.
Plus, how is this argument: "He shows Britney Spears saying she supports the President on Iraq. As if there weren't a host of brain-dead bimbo celebs, (Madonna, Sean Penn, Russell Simmons, Lenny Kravitz, Susan Sarandon, The Dixie Chicks, etc.), spouting off on the other side." the exposition of a deceitful aspect of Moore's film? He wasn't trying to hide the fact that they did, nor did he push an implication that they didn't. Obviously the movie is going to better represent his "side".
Take the documentary "Fog of War", for example. There was a driving theme to that whole documentary. Therefore, all the clips from McNamara and from elsewhere were chosen to promote that theme. If I say down and made an argument that everything should have been put in full context and every detail included, then the theme crumbles. Obviously there is another side for every assertion. I didn't see Fahrnheit 9/11 to learn that. I wanted to here one side make it's argument. The other side can have it's chance too.
Bush polarises people. Some people really think that he is great, sorting out the economy and liberating countries. Many think that he is spending too much money giving his friends tax cuts and totally failing to understand that how national credibility depends on doing the right things for the right reasons. Being against Bush doesn't mean you are a democrat. You could be Osama bin Laden, but at the same time you could be Warren Buffett or George Soros.
Your definition is wrong on pretty much every level. It's sad that it is modded up so high. But i guess it is a common misconception, as I've heard this argument a lot lately. It is wrong factually; and it is wrong in relation to the common usage of the term.
As for the facts, here is what Merriam-Webster says:
1 : being or consisting of documents : contained or certified in writing [documentary evidence]
2 : of, relating to, or employing documentation in literature or art; broadly : FACTUAL, OBJECTIVE [a documentary film of the war]
Do not be distracted by the "broad" synonyms. The definition states clearly "employing documentation in literature or art". This is what Michael Moore did; and did it with a surprising level of self control and artistry, to boot.
Some other dictionaries define things (of course) slightly differently, but there is no substantial difference which negates the above definition.
On a personal note: I went into the movie fairly certain that I'd see nothing new. I already knew all of the "facts" Moore played upon. And this was true to a large extent (though there were a couple of things I'd missed in the news, and a few more which I'd almost forgotten). But despite "knowing" most of the material, I found the "movie" profoundly disturbing and moving in ways I had not felt before. The presentation was incredible.
For example, the absolutely breathtaking intro during the credits... just scene after scene of the elite white house staff being prepared for a press conference, with music over top of it. The slow motion looks. The makeup and hair dressers milling around. The waiting. Was this "deceptive"? We all know that probably all politicians of that level of all parties do the same menial things to prepare: but then these images are not just put in to make the president look ridiculous, but are brought back later and we realise what exact press conference all that was leading up to... breathtaking. It is truly something to think about in regards to how "facts" are presented to us from the Oval Office... not much different than Moore's film. And in this particular case, much more in danger of being realistically convicted of deception and lies especially... and if there were justice: legally.
One of the many subtle and artistic observances of Moore which actually apply to our society and the way government works as a whole, not just the current regime: it's just that the current regime is a particularly gross and hypocritical offender, in the views of many people.
If you had any idea how much footage was staged in these nature documentaries, I think you'd agree that Fahrenheit 9/11 is a documentary.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Does Moore ever argue that the Saudis "run US policy"? No. Is there any amount of influence less than running policy and greater than zero? Yes. So, Hitchens' first actual disagreement (twelve! paragraphs in) is nonsensical - it is indeed possible for the Saudis to have undue influence on the US without controlling it.
It would be idiotic for anyone to say that the Neocons are lapdogs of the Saudis - Saudi Arabia was viewed as one of the countries that would straighten up and fly right after the democratic beacon of Iraq started shining in the Mideast. So, we have yet again a distortion of what Moore says.
(Granted, it's easy to distort what Moore means, because he tends to present facts and comments without forcing a narrative. Know anyone else who did that?)
The second criticism is both stupid and inaccurate. It would be possible to argue: 1) that we should not go into Afghanistan and 2) if we do go, we should send enough troops to do the job right and not make the problem worse. How do I know the argument could be made? Because many people made it about Iraq!
Strangely, that's not what Moore says - what he says about Afghanistan is that it was two months after the invasion that US special forces were sent to the part of Afghanistan where OBL was.
The rest of this article is no better than this. There are problems with Moore's movie (check out the daily howler), but the mainstream media can't seem to focus on them.
Link to CNN.com story.
SHOVELING COAL FOR SATAN: Christopher Hitchens collects check from Microsoft, calls Moore a coward
read that article, please.
Just raise the taxes on crack.
No, that's the definition of the adjective form of the word "documentary", not the noun form, which is what we are discussing when we talk about "a documentary".
Don't believe me? Look for yourself.
I knocked down this little bit of selective mis-definition in an earlier thread... the fact that it keeps popping up when it is so obviously wrong indicates that either many people here need to learn how to use a dictionary, or they need to learn how to do more than just parrot Republican talking points.
Read my blog.
Here is a link explaining how Moore's alleged stance on copyright issues is being used to damage the profitability of the film:
Link to CNN.com story.
Interesting how Mel Gibson actually cracked down on peer-to-peer distribution of "The Passion of the Christ" (techincally the equivalent to stealing Bibles) where as Moore supports the free sharing of his movie.
Letterman's Top Ten List: "Top Ten George W. Bush Complaints About "Fahrenheit 9/11":
10. That actor who played the President was totally unconvincing
9. It oversimplified the way I stole the election
8. Too many of them fancy college-boy words
7. If Michael Moore had waited a few months, he could have included the part where I get him deported
6. Didn't have one of them hilarious monkeys who smoke cigarettes and gives people the finger
5. Of all Michael Moore's accusations, only 97% are true
4. Not sure - - I passed out after a piece of popcorn lodged in my windpipe
3. Where the hell was Spider-man?
2. Couldn't hear most of the movie over Cheney's foul mouth
1. I thought this was supposed to be about dodgeball
Your definition of patriotism is actually nationalism, there is a very big difference.
Nationalism is the beleif that your nation is right above all others, patriotism is the love for your country expressed.
Moore expresses the love for his country in a very meaninfull way. He created a documentary which describes what he thinks is wrong with the government in an effort to change that.
You can find very few people, you included, who have gone to the efforts that Micheal Moore has to bring what he beleives is injustice to light.
In fact, that by definition makes Micheal Moore one of the most patriotic people in America.
What you beleive is Nationalism, which is patriotism expressed as "My nation is right."
Unfortunately many people have been fooled into thinking that our President and his political party represent America, so your Nationalism is represented by your support of these groups with your patriotism.
Many people tend to forget that the most patriotic men, the founders of our country, railed heartily against our government for many of the same reasons. The only difference between their actions and the actions of Micheal Moore, is that M.Moore exists in a system where the Govt. can be altered to his point of view if he can convince enough people. The great thing about America is that we do not need revolutions for this kind of thing.
So, saying that Micheal Moore is a patriot, and that he loves America is a patently true statement, by any logical definition. Though you would be right if you argued that Micheal Moore is not a Nationalist, so, if you beleive Nationalism = Patriotism, then you would be correct. But the definitions of each would put error to your belief.
Annendum:
I use the main definition of patriotism which is the expression of love for ones country.
And a common second definition of Nationalism which is the beleif that your country is right above all others. Also to clarify, I also beleive some feel that our President and his party are the "country" and those that disagree with them disagree with the "country"
Buzz_Litebeer, Extreme Moderate.
If you don't vote, you don't matter, so don't waste your time telling me your opinion
The website is:
..... "While I disagree with many of his points and his insulting style, he does raise factual issues."
http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723
Paragraph #1. Personal reminiscing. No facts to contradict f9/11.
#2. Still no facts.
#3. Still no facts.
#4. Still no facts. Speaks of a previous debate.
#5. Still no facts.
#6. Stating a premise of the movie is NOT stating a fact against that movie.
#7. See #6
#8. See #7
#9. See #8
#10. I'm not sure what he's saying here.
#11. His opinion of what the movie seems to be saying.
#12. Sets up false dichotomies ("Either the Saudis run U.S. policy (through family ties or overwhelming economic interest), or they do not.") that do not seem to be stated in the film.
#13. Complains about Moore ("In a long and paranoid (and tedious) section at the opening of the film, he makes heavy innuendoes about the flights that took members of the Bin Laden family out of the country after Sept. 11.").
#14. This one is cute. "A film that bases itself on a big lie and a big misrepresentation can only sustain itself by a dizzying succession of smaller falsehoods, beefed up by wilder and (if possible) yet more-contradictory claims."
Yet he has not managed to identify the "big lie" yet.
#15. Another cute one. "The president is also captured in a well-worn TV news clip, on a golf course, making a boilerplate response to a question on terrorism and then asking the reporters to watch his drive." But it is factual and caught on tape.
#16. Another cute one. "In this peaceable kingdom, according to Moore's flabbergasting choice of film shots, children are flying little kites, shoppers are smiling in the sunshine, and the gentle rhythms of life are undisturbed." But it seems to be actual footage of actual Iraqis before the war.
#17. "Moore asserts that Iraq under Saddam had never attacked or killed or even threatened (his words) any American." I'm going to need to verify that Moore said that. This may be one actual discrepency.
#18. "Thus, in spite of the film's loaded bias against the work of the mind, you can grasp even while watching it that Michael Moore has just said, in so many words, the one thing that no reflective or informed person can possibly believe: that Saddam Hussein was no problem."
Well I believe that he was not a problem. He was contained and his country was collapsing around him. He couldn't even travel without body doubles.
#19. "From being accused of overlooking too many warnings--not exactly an original point--the administration is now lavishly taunted for issuing too many."
And that is a factual error how?
#20. "Circling back to where we began, why did Moore's evil Saudis not join "the Coalition of the Willing"?"
Not even complete speculation. This does not count as a factual counter.
#21. No facts. He doesn't like the way Moore picks on Bush.
#22. No facts. He doesn't like the way Moore plays to racial inequality.
#23. No facts. "Moore has announced that he won't even appear on TV shows where he might face hostile questioning." So? Attack the movie. If you can.
#24. "However, I think we can agree that the film is so flat-out phony that "fact-checking" is beside the point."
He ADMITS that he doesn't have any facts to counter the movie with. Did you even READ this far into it? Fact-checking would be the FIRST thing to do to show how "flat-out phony" the movie was.
#25. Still, no facts to counter the movie.
#26. See #25.
#27. See #26.
#28. See #27.
#29. No facts. Just attacks on Moore.
Yet you claim
Perhaps someone could point them out? I've already gone through each paragraph, by the numbers. It can't be that difficult, can it?
...in approving downloads? Is it to spread his message? Very possibly. But can it be much deeper? I recall reading he will possibly be banned from selling his DVDs and Videos due to some federal laws prohibiting the candidates' names from being advertised in commmercial products, or something of that nature; I suppose similar to network channels not broadcasting Arnold's films half-a-year ago. So, that could very well be his real reason, as I strongly doubt he wants to forego potential profits, despite his political position.
A blog like any other.
You may not like it, and you don't have to agree with him. But why people think they are somehow impugning his credibility with the cry that this is not a documentary is beyond me. It just makes you sound silly.
Um, they are both documentaries, and Moore has stated this.
So what if it is or isn't?
The only reason this "difference" is being flogged by the radicals is that it creates a patina, an aura, of "lying" by Moore. It's misdirection, in the same manner that Moore illustrated in the movie itself. Don't look at the elephant on the bed! Look at the dictionary! It's not an elephant by definition! It's a pachyderm!
Level-headedness shouldn't make you stupid. The facts in the movie are checked out. They are solid. What he documents happening, happened.
There is a difference between what O'Really and the radical right wing talkers do and what Moore does. Both are propagandists. The Right pretends to be fair, Moore does not. The Right has constant access to the airwaves, Moore does not. Bush and company lies, constantly, incontravertibly. Moore does not.
Moore is one man, and the radicals are legion. They are not equivalent.
Maybe he go as far as to make documentaries about it because he cares so much for his country and that it's properly run?
That's pretty funny.
Moore doesn't want a president that's in a school browsing a book when USA is attacked by Al-Qaida.
Yeah, I'm sure that Bush was intentionally reading books to children during the attack. His secretary probably scheduled it.
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.
l
a ti s_doc.html
I'm not sure where you got this definition (oh, the dictionary. I see), but you left out one of the definitions:
n. pl. documentaries
A work, such as a film or television program, presenting political, social, or historical subject matter in a factual and informative manner and often consisting of actual news films or interviews accompanied by narration.
Here is a discussion about what film people consider a documentary, rather than us couch potatoes (hint - it's not as simple as you state):
http://www.realityfilm.com/study/definition.htm
http://www.documentorseminars.com/pages/main_wh
"Why does everyone think it was ONLY Bush that thought he had them?"
Who is saying that?
I'm sure that they also both believed in Santa Claus and The Tooth Fairy at one time in their lives.
But Clinton did not invade. Bush did.
Now in spyderman, there were on average 5 people per family viewing the movie.
On average? What are you guys, rabbits?
#!/usr/bin/english
What are you talking about? It is showing in cinemas all over the UK today. A list of London cinemas where it is showing is here. I don't know about the rest of the country since popcorn.co.uk got shut down.
There's only been the POT release of F911, and it's the crappy CAM with no Patriot act or singing Ashcroft. I think your torrent is only the same as all the others, no DVD at all, but the same movie in MPEG format for easy burning to DVD. So don't waste your bandwidth.
"Oppression and harassment is a small price to pay to live in the land of the free." -- Montgomery Burns.
By stating that if you do not believe Fahrenheit 9/11 to be a documentary then opponent does not understand what it is to be a documentary, poster is stating one of the following:
1. opponent is stupid (ad hominem)
2. opponent is uneducated (ad hominem)
3. opponent chose to believe false information (ad hominem)
I see. So if I say I disagree with you, it's an ad hominem attack because it implies you are stupid, uneducated, or believe false information?
You seem to mistakenly believe (and attempt to prove by a baseless assertion, since we're so fond of meta-talk here) that an ad hominem attack is any argument which implicitly insults an opponent, when in fact it is merely an argument which attempts to prove its correctness solely through insulting the opponent. In other words, if I tell you you are wrong about the definition of ad hominem, but back it up with, say, a definition, while I have implied that you are stupid or uneducated, I have not conducted an ad hominem, because that implication was not the main thrust of my argument.
"Widely accepted"? This is ad numeram or perhaps even ad verecundiam, depending on who is doing the "accepting".
Once again, we've somehow managed to retain our knowledge of Latin terms, but not their proper usage. You see, if you were arguing over some factual point such as whether or not Iraq had WMDs, or whether AIDS is a contagious virus, and his argument was, ``well, a lot of people seem to believe it, so it's probably accurate'', then your critique would be correct and justified. But in this instance, you are arguing over the meaning of a word--whether this film can rightfully be called a documentary--and so to make his case, it is perfectly legitimate to present what the majority opinion is on the meaning of that word (assuming we both accept that language is determined by the practitioners and not by the dictionary publishers; feel free to dispute with the parent as desired).
See? Isn't debating fun?
1. Standard right wing/conservative approach to dealing with issues: DON'T
Attack the messenger, ignore the message.
The vast majority of negative reviews of F911 tend to center around character assassination of Moore himself, rather than the issues raised in his movies:
2. Make outrageous claims with no intent to back them up:
3. "Post-hypnotic suggestions" - Tell people what they will think.
It's bad enough that any critic has the job of influencing people based on their opinion, but when they start telling you how you will react to the movie, they've gone too far:
4. Push the boundaries of hypocrisy
This great trick, perfected by Fox News with the advent of the "No Spin Zone" has been elevated to an art form by the Bush administration. Right wing pundits employ this technique more often than they whip out their American Express gold card:
Let's put thoughts in Michael Moore's head, then let's lambast him for putting thoughts in other peoples' heads. Then let's top it all off with a cherry:
I honestly think some people -- maybe not the majority but a significant minority -- download movies, songs, TV shows, software, etc because they are addicted.
I'm willing to bet that everyone here knows at least one guy (or girl) who has hundreds of thousands of MP3s, some of which they've only listened to once. Or maybe someone who has dozens of complete TV series. You walk into these people's rooms and there are tons of 100 disc CD spindles sitting on shelves, completely burned and just collecting dust.
I have to believe in these cases that it's a form of internet cleptomania. Not the most damaging of disorders, but still not fucking right.
That there is an "interest" (mild word) in oil driving not just the current Iraq adventure but middle-east policy at large is undeniable.
;)) fighting the Soviets, who then went on to form the Taliban government; Russia was one of the major oil trading partners with Iraq while that country was under sanctions ... swing your partner, do-si-do.
However, the idea that France (or, say, Russia) is above "feet wet in some shitty Arab country that means nothing to most people, except of course GW Bush and his oil frenzied cronies" does not match the facts. Russia (in the form of the USSR) certain got its feet wet (and often blown off) in Afghanistan, where the U.S. strangely enough trained or flowed money to a lot of people (the Mujihideen, spelling loose
A few tidbits about France's involvement in the export of Iraqi oil can be found here (globalpolicy.org/security/oil/irqindx.htm)
(And more on French involvement in Iraqi trade.)
The high-level U.S. motives in Iraq I consider partly cynical, though they're mixed with some good ones. Are they *mostly* cynical, and the good ones are only in there as window dressing, or is it a matter of inextricably linked attributes? That's not a rhetorical question.
[Note: I think the U.S. should stay out of this sort of adventure unless truly necessary, but even though it sounds definitive, "truly necessary" is a tough standard to agree on. A lot of people consider WWII to have been obvious (U.S. involvement, that is), but it sure wasn't at the time. The UN had found it necessary to place a series of arms-inspection teams (by most accounts ineffective due to manpower constraints as well as their acceptance of rather bizarre rules) into Iraq, and the uncooperation those teams faced is one thing that goaded the U.S., with greater support than it now enjoys for it, into war; this has always struck me as one of the most bizarre aspects of the whole thing.]
timothy
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
F911 - deceitful truth
END EXAMPLE showing Mike Moore being truthful albeit in a deceitful manner
Babylon 5 - deceitful truth ... remember that Dan Randall (the b5 ISN
news reporter) was very truthful... he just strung the facts together in an
unethically truthful way just like Mike Moore
If you are still a wee-bit confused about how Mike Moore editing works then you can check out the Babylon 5 episode "Illusion of Truth" which taught me that "truth" might not always be ethical truth and that "truth" might actually be a deceitful truth
Orwell
Many mention/imply that the USA is headed in the direction of Orwell's "1984" (perhaps F911 is an example of 1984 techniques in action). However, many are not aware of Orwell's other writings. For example, Notes on Nationalism:
I believe Juanita
In the movie piracy scene, generally films are released as either VCD or SVCD format. These are in BIN/CUE format, ready for burning. The BIN/CUE's are then RAR'd to take advantage of RAR's splitting capabilities and integrity checks. Then the RAR's are distributed.
In other words, this is normal. What's annoying is when somebody hosts a torrent that is the RAR files and not the uncompressed BIN/CUE's. The pirating group never goes so far as to release the thing onto torrents or such. They're sending files between ftp sites, usually on hacked systems or other systems with big fat pipes and lots of storage. They use tools that let them FTP between sites (similar to FSP), and sometimes from multiple sites (this is where having many RAR files comes in handy) to saturate bandwidth on the receiving sides.
Sometimes this is even automated. Those tools are pretty nifty, actually. You feed it a list of sites and a list of files. It FTPs the whole thing to the first site, then uses FSP to copy it to the second site (much faster than directly FTP'ing it there), then uses FSP to send it to the third site from both of the first two sites simultaneously, and so on. By the time it's done, 20-30 sites can have the thing, and it didn't take any longer than it would have took to send to 3 or 4 of them directly, thanks to the FSP using direct connections between sites and the RAR's being split so that it can send from multiple sites at once. More complicated tools can improve on this by transferring to many sites at once from many other sites and maximizing bandwidth on all of them.
In any case, these sites then get distributed to others via IRC, and people download the thing from these sites, and put it onto their 0-day hookups. This goes on for a bit, and then it eventually filters down to people who might actually watch the movie. Up until now, it's just people trading files because they like trading files fast. They might never actually use those files. Anyway, once it makes it onto sites where people will actually download the thing and thus watch it, it often goes from there onto the P2P networks. Some guy makes a Torrent out of it, somebody sticks it onto Usenet, etc, etc. Often it'll hit newsgroups before it gets made into a torrent somewhere. But by the time it's a torrent, you're at least 4-5 generations away from the original pirated site transfers.
This is so commonplace that tools exist to deal with the multiple layers of formatting. I suggest getting a copy of VCDGear (search google). It can convert RAR'd BIN/CUE's directly into MPG files for viewing. One step, instead of two or three.
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Moore is against things, rather than for things. That's the main problem I have with him. He's a bomb thrower, not a provider of solutions.
Instead, he should have made a movie about what a wonderful president Kerry will make? Moore has been there when people in positions of power have strayed far from doing what is good for society. Sometimes people in power need to be told to stop doing something, just like a little kid doing something naughty needs to be told, "No, thats bad." Moore prefers to stay outside of politics - I think we can all relate to not wanting to get our hands dirty there. To stay true to one's self seems near impossible when you're a politician. Also, Moore does have his goals - vote bush out. Hell, if Kerry would be as bad as bush, i would expect to hear Moore speaking out against him as well.
If you look into the facts, Moore stays much closer to them than Limbaugh does. Moore states that F9/11 is an op/ed piece, but he'll also defend every fact he states in that movie. Limbaugh on the other hand, is someone who speak out for family values while getting three divorces himself. Someone who claims to tell the truth despite having an elaborate drug addiction.
Know what I like about atheists? I've yet to meet one that believes God is on their side.
Um, they are both documentaries, and Moore has stated this.
Um, I just told you Moore has stated he is making no claims that Fahrenheight 9/11 is rooted in impartial fact but is an op-ed piece. Hell, right now the Daily Show is running a rerun with Moore on it, and he says the same damn thing.
If you still think Bowling For Columbine is a documentary even after it's been proven he completely distorted facts, well, then clearly you're more concerned with believing what Moore tells you than what the facts are.
There is a difference between what O'Really and the radical right wing talkers do and what Moore does.
What does O'Reilly have to do with this? He makes it clear his show is an editorial commentary show. Not a documentary.
Both are propagandists. The Right pretends to be fair, Moore does not.
There is ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE, except that you agree with Moore and don't agree with the right. So suddenly, they're "pretending to be fair" and Moore isn't. Is that why Moore came out after Cannes and said his film was supported by facts and would go after anyone claiming otherwise with a suit of libel?
That's like MoveOn.org pretending to be fair. Surprise, surprise, people who believe in their opinions think they're being fair. You have chosen to adhere yourself to the left, and so you think they're fair.
The Right has constant access to the airwaves, Moore does not.
Give me a break. The journalism industry is dominated by liberals, and a recent poll even proved this. If a conservative filmmaker made a "documentary" that stretched the truth like Moore did, papers like the L.A. Times would be all over it. Hell, did you even know Moore gave back his documentary Oscar? Of course you didn't, because the liberal media didn't report on it. If a conservative filmmaker had done that, it would, again, be on the front pages as "SO-AND-SO GIVES BACK OSCAR."
Bush and company lies, constantly, incontravertibly. Moore does not.
Ah, and so your biased agenda emerges. You don't want to see truth, you just want to believe everything Moore says because, again, he tells you what you want to hear. I already gave you lies that Moore has told, including a link to an even bigger list on Bowling For Columbine as well as a Slate article that listed Fahrenheit 9/11's lies (Iraq never threatened a single American?).
After the 9/11 Commission determined that there was nothing wrong with the Saudi flights, suddenly Moore changed his tune, and the film was an "op-ed piece."
Moore is one man, and the radicals are legion. They are not equivalent.
You are biased. Believe what you want about Moore, even in the face of truth. I've offered you facts. All you've offered with your post can be summed up as, "Nuh-uh, the Right lies and Moore doesn't. So there!" You're sure convinced me.
"Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the President."
- President Theodore Roosevelt
"The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly as necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."
- President Theodore Roosevelt
And while we're at it, let's ask President Jefferson too...
"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism."
- President Thomas Jefferson
I guess 35mm is totally inferior since its what most movies are shot on. 35mm.
I was under the impression that he was informed of the first attack before going into the school, and was informed of the second while reading, upon which he continued to read for what many would think an inappropriate amount of time. Certainly he realized it was an attack after the second plane hit (hell, you can see it on his face).
You should go watch the movie, or at least the part where it showed Bush sitting around looking like a monkey for 7 minutes. He is not actually reading the book with the children, he is glancing at it and looking around nervously for 7 minutes trying to decide what to do.
If you don't vote, you don't matter, so don't waste your time telling me your opinion
Frankly, I'm far more worried about a government that no longer even represents the majority of the people - they are obviously there to further themselves, not make the US better. If this kind of 'leadership' is allowed to continue, 5 years from now the US as it was designed will be on it's way out.
If being pissed off that government is being used as a tool for those in power to scratch the backs of their backroom pals and feather their nests, then a pompous fuck I am.
Yeah, I'll wear the T-shirt too...
His movie broke plenty of records, so I'm sure the box-office employees will be doing fine, they're paid hourly anyway, and unless people stop making movies, they'll have jobs.
Paid hourly? With what? Fairy dust? No. Their pay comes from ticket and concession sales. Over the long run, fewer tickets sold might mean smaller raises. Or it could mean that the theatre doesn't remain profitable and closes down. Don't tell me you've never seen a theatre that has gone out of business.
Besides, when a theatre has 8 movies and only one of them is going gangbusters, it's not like the sales from that movie are not important. For every "Fahrenheit 9/11", there are plenty of movies like "Gigli", "You Got Served", and "Torque."
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
Not that they didn't already, but now it will be more obvious.
--Rick "If it isn't broken, take it apart and find out why."
Not that I believe any of that, but hey, if someone likes F911, maybe they'd like the Clinton Chronicles, too.
The key difference between left- and right-wing propaganda is that left-wingers will also criticize the Democrats and liberals if necessary. Moore has, and does, slam the Democrats. Al Franken has too. Mike Malloy did it. Randi Rhodes does it. Lots of "liberal" commentators do it regularly because they stand by principles, not a party. Can you cite an example of the producers of The Clinton Chronicles going after a Republican or a conservative on film like that? How about Ann Coulter? Rush? Sean Hannity? Ever hear those guys utter a single criticism of their own side? In fact, many of them stick to what's called Reagan's eleventh commandment: to speak no ill of fellow Republicans.
The difference between these two groups of commentators is striking and if you don't believe it, go look into David Brock's Blinded by the Right which gives an insider's account of the Republican smear machinery at work of which the Clinton Chronicles is a small part. Still, if it makes you feel good to equate someone like Michael Moore with the producers of the tripe called The Clinton Chronicles, then by all means, go for it.
--Rick "If it isn't broken, take it apart and find out why."
that if right-wingers and the press applied the same scrutiny they've given Moore's film to the Bush administration, we might not be in the mess we're in today.
Incorrect data. It made 39 million in the first week. (As long as you don't count those two days where it was only open in two theatres, and don't count Canne) Numbers as of july 1st have ith p?t=2592
earning $50 million.
http://www.leesmovieinfo.net/wbotitle.p
Non sequitur: Your facts are uncoordinated.
1355 Americans gave it a "1". 93 gave it a "2". I'm not sure what to think of those numbers.
If you would have done the slightest bit of research whatsoever, you would have found that the 1's and 2's most likely do no affect the score very much. The scores are are not a median or average, they are weighted. Please see this page
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur
I've always noticed a lot more America bashing than French bashing on /.
/. childish and embarrassing (despite being essentially on the same "side" as many of the bashers, e.g., I hate Bush and his cronies [but who doesn't these days...], I'm liberal, environmentalist, etc.).
Seriously, though I think that's more a slashdot thing.
I'm American, and am pretty disgusted at the state of the U.S. these days -- having gone so far as to spend 10 of the last 14 years living outside the U.S. -- but even so, I find a lot of the America bashing on
However reasonable their basic complaint, people do not seem to think very critically about what they say, and despite the huge number of valid criticisms end up spewing bile almost randomly. It's as if people somehow believe that they won't be taken seriously in their complaints unless they're entirely against everything American.
That's something refreshing about Moore: though he sometimes succumbs to the temptation to rant, he avoids just attaching himself to simplistic labels -- he isn't "anti-American", "anti-gun", or whatever, he's just "anti-bad-stuff".
We live, as we dream -- alone....
If you want to get into the HIV -> AIDS (use the right notation, HIV implies AIDS, it does not equal AIDS... if this confuses you read up on Discrete)
Christ you're an idiot. You say 'read up on discrete' (I assume you mean Descartes) and you don't even understand the most basic logic.
It isn't "HIV -> AIDS", the question is "AIDS -> HIV", which means if you have AIDS, you also have HIV. (It also says: if you have HIV, you may or may not have AIDS. If you do not have HIV, youd o not have AIDS)
Saying "HIV causes AIDS" is completly diffrent from saying "HIV implies AIDS", retard.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Well, asking that question is a fallacy to questioning, therefore I win.
But in all seriousness, the whole idea of pointing out a fallacy is to show that simply, the conclusion given does not follow from the premises given or implied. It's a small mind who thinks that an argument can be refuted by invoking a fallacy, and I believe the fallacy of an argument from ignorance fits this scenario nicely: an argument may assume that since something has not been proven true, it is therefore false.
It provides a false dilemna: the invoker immediately assumes that there are only two possible outcomes: 1) that the target of the invocation has a sound argument, and his conclusion is true, and 2) that the target of the invocation doesn't have a sound argument, and thus, his conclusion is false.
He is neglecting several other outcomes, one of which is that the target of the invocation may in fact have an unsound argument, but nevertheless the conclusion he presents is still true.
There is a word for someone who practices this kind of doubletalk in argumentation: sophist. The sophist and orator care not about what's correct, but winning the argument. He invokes rules of argumentation like they are tools in a belt, rather than actively seeking out the truth. It's quite sad.
I agree with parent. A perfect example of what the starter of this argument was trying to convey can be best exemplified by Plato's argument for garnering respect for the state of Athens:
We owe a great deal of respect and gratitude for our parents because they have provided us with many goods and have protected us when we could not, thus, a fortiori, we owe an even greater deal of respect and gratitude for the state because they have provided us with even more goods and have protected us moreseo than our parents.
The idea is that the argument for showing respect for our parents is implicit: everyone is assumed to know that this is a sound or accepted argument. Where the grand parent is having problems is seeing that this is not the argument being presented. The argument being presented is that the state of Athens is of the same type as parents, and thus, the argument still holds.
To go back to the original argument, the movies cited are of the same kind as Fahrenheit 9/11, and if they are to be considered documentative works, a fortiori so should Fahrenheit 9/11. He makes no explicit argument about the cited movies, and assumes that we can all agree that they are indeed documentative works.
I think the grandparent really needs to go back and read all of the responses, as I don't think he is truly grasping what was originally said.
Get your facts straight please. There is plenty of information
u sh +school+911&btnG=Google+Search
about this on google.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=b
Bush already knew about the first plane crash before he was in the school, and he sat there for 5 minutes flipping through a book after he was informed about it.
Non sequitur: Your facts are uncoordinated.
I was hoping someone would mention the Hitchens article, because it's just so comically baseless to anyone who actually reads it critically. To quote the link, "[Hitchens] claims lies have been told, but can only find one statement that could even be inferred as untrue - and even that's a stretch."
It's a laughing shame that anyone still takes that guy seriously.
Heck is a place for people who don't believe in Gosh.
Actually it seems to me the article quotes Moore and does not deny he said what he said. That said, the article DOES say that the companies involved are going to sue anybody who distributes the movie illegally.
The article goes on to describe the back and forth between supporters and detractors of the film and the almost "polticial campaign" behavior of both sides. This fight may be more significant than the actual Presidential campaign it is intended to influence.
Of course, Bush is planning the Second Korean War as we speak as his "October Surprise", so all this may become irrelevant - except to prove Moore was right.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
"You get all the fun of sitting still, being quiet, writing down numbers, paying attention...science has it all."
Excuse me? IRC networks don't actually handle the transfers, they merely facilitate the spread of information. IRC file transfers are actually direct transfers between source and destination.Uhh, it's still not legal, but the director and the distributor are just not going to give a damn about enforcing it unless someone starts sellign pirated copies
I wonder what percentage of that were people that actually decided not to go see it and dl it instead.. I doubt its actually that many.
You probably are right. I just don't think that a girl is going to be impressed by a date that consists of watching a grainy, downloaded movie on a 17" computer monitor.
Many mention/imply that the USA is headed in the direction of Orwell's "1984" (perhaps F911 is an example of 1984 techniques in action). However, many are not aware of Orwell's other writings. For example, Notes on Nationalism:
One last thing ... I triple double dare slashdotters to watch the Iraq torture
video clip
I believe Juanita
You didn't even mention the security aspect of his sitting there for 7 minutes. How was he, or the Secret Service, to know if the people that attacked the WTC wasn't going to come after Bush, too? He was _scheduled_ to be there with those kids, so 19 commandoes could have been waiting outside to kill him.
The point is, it was stupid to sit there for 7 minutes after the second plane hit, ANY way you look at it.
"he's given so much credit by the so-called "left". "
Well Mike Moore isn't really the leftie's lefty. He's just the only left wing voice that most normal Americans ever hear, which is why he gets hit by rabid and disproportionate amounts of criticism by dribbling right-wing trolls much like yourself. Greg Palast and Noam Chomsky are much better, but almost nobody hears THEM and they're harder to criticise because they've got a much better command of the facts than Michael Moore. Hence you pick on the guy who gives you most bang for your dribbling troll buck, and even then, you get it wrong.
"So Mikey Moore won't send the IP "gestapo" around to me if I do copy his film? So what?"
Meaning he's a fuckload better than every single other Hollywood director that you conspicuously didn't criticise. Gnats and camels.
"As to the "open source way"... no. You've got it wrong. If Mikey Moore's movie were open source he would be releasing a decent copy of the film in some machine-readable format."
He's released a decent copy of the film. As a proper cinema film in a metal box and everything. That's the 'source' version, since everything else is just a lossy copy of that, even that nice DVD-friendly bitstream you're demanding he gives you for free. You CAN pay for that and make the digital copy you demand. Hey, someone has to make that machine-readable version, and it does involve a lot of actual work and capital expenditure, you know. Won't you get blackballed from your local society of libertarian loons if they hear you demanding that other people do work for you for free?
Richard Stallman didn't put out his early copies of emacs for free- if you got your emacs from Stallman, you had to pay him something like $150 or thereabouts. Do you expect Michael Moore to be even more of a puritan than good old RMS?
Besides, if you're going to criticise him for non 'open-source'-ness get it right. The major way he breaks that 'open source' thing is by his non-commercial restriction. Hope this helps.
Or, perhaps, who is living in a city or a neighborhood where being seen at this movie is bad.
Or, perhaps, who is living in a city where not a single theater has this movie.
Old Michael Moore is actually pretty good. His recent stuff, however, is nothing short of propoganda. The number of lies and half-truths he's been telling in his recent movies is just staggering.
I can't believe that people call this a documentary. Documentaries are supposed to be at least aiming for the truth. You should read this - http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/
One of the more interesting points is that, while Richard Clarke is viewed as the hero in Moore's movie, it was him, and him alone who authorized the Saudi flights out of the US.
Of course, absolutely noone in the media ever mentions Gore's close ties with big oil, or the fact that he sold our Navy's national reserves to the company his Dad worked for, leaving us even more dependent on foreign oil than ever.
Engineering and the Ultimate
The complaints are usually aimed at the cowardice and weakness of the French republic which didn't emerge for at least a decade after that (1789?).
That is a pretty ignorant statement as you are ignoring a lot of French history after 1789. The biggest ommision is Napoleon. Did you not know that Napoleon Controlled most of Europe? He was also slugging it out with our main Enemy in the early 19th century, the English. Remember when the British invaded the U.S in 1812 and burned D.C.? France was anything but weak under Napoleon. You also seem to be ignoring the hardships that the French endured over the 19th and 20th century. The aftermath of the Napoleonic wars left France with an installed Monarch and a subsequent revolution in 1830. France dealt with a serious shortage of Men over the 19th and 20th century due to heavy losses in Wars, ( Napoleonic,Franco-Prussian, WWI and WWII ). It's hard to fight Wars when there are missing generations of Men.
I think your view of France has been shaped by the English. The English hate the French. They have a very big rivalry as they were at war with each other for hundreds of years. Much of our society and law have been influenced by the English. After all aren't most Americans more familiar with the Kings and Queens of England than of France? When you think of the middle ages and knights do you not think of King arthur and an English settings. The fact is the French and other European countries were more advanced at an earlier stage than the English. Just travel to England and France and compare the architecture and the time periods in which they were built. You will see that the French were more advanced in their architecture and building methods than the English. For more info on why the Brittish hate the French and vise versa.... theotherside
I guess your opinions on Michael Moore and Fahrenheit 9/11 depend on where you get your information. You, unfortunately, chose to point out that your information comes from a well known, and well debunked personal attack by Christopher Hitchens against Michael Moore.
My suggestion is if you choose to get your information about someones credibility, at least try to choose a credible source.
"The English hate the French." Now there's a generalisation if ever I've heard one. As an Englishman, I'm quite offended by this. All of our countries have a chequered history. Sometimes our leaders (be them monarchy or polititions) have made bad decisions, sometimes good ones. I think France is a wonderful place, full of culture and friendly people. If you come and get to know real English people, you might think differently of us. I work with North Americans, most of them from Utah. It is amusing how little some of them know about anything outside of their own country, but they laugh along and are happy to learn. In the meantime, use English get a new perspective of living in the USA. Wouldn't it be great if we could all just get along?
Michael Moore completely supports the P2P downloading of his film ... his distribution company, however, will sue you pants off.
"We shall party like the Greeks of old! You know the ones I mean." - HedonismBot
You're speaking to an ex-libertarian. I'm quite familiar with the concepts behind the movement.
Hate to break it to you, business and free markets do not, have not, and will never exist. they are great on paper. In the real world, this thing called money can override nearly everything else that should be a factor in a free market, usually to the detraction of the welfare of the people.
See business is inherently organized, and controls large amounts of money. The only way to counterbalance that power is by organizing. government is the de facto organizing of people for their own well-being, at least in the modern pseudo democratic paradigm we live in. It does go too far sometimes. Libertarians and many other right wing people go far too far the other way as well. They pretend the market is self correcting. It is not. It is far more complex than that.
Much like we don't still live in caves and trust nature to meet our needs on her own, and instead engineer and produce improvements to ensure our own well being, likewise a "wild" market is not suitable for a stable society.