Slashdot Mirror


Celsius 41.11: A Rebuttal to Michael Moore

deezl writes "Michael Moore released a controversial movie revealing 'facts' about the Bush Presidency. A new rebuttal has just been released called Celsius 41.11. I would think that time sensitive political commentaries would be available for download to ensure the widest possible distribution base. If documentary makers are so interested in getting their message out and arguments across, why not encourage free BitTorrent type distribution for their movies?"

47 of 255 comments (clear)

  1. But... by Issue9mm · · Score: 4, Informative

    Michael Moore DID encourage downloading of his movie via Bittorrent, and other means.

    -9mm-

    1. Re:But... by shufler · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Indeed, and he pushed to get it aired on network TV, at the cost of giving up some awards.

      This Celsius 41.11 seems to be solely trying to make money off the success of F9/11. If they want to "get the facts straight," they wouldn't force us to pay $20 for them.

      And what the hell does C44.11 mean, anyways? The daily temperature in Iraq? . I mean, 41.11C is 105.998F, they could have at least had it convert properly. I bet Ray Bradbury is really rolling in his err... near grave)

    2. Re:But... by sgant · · Score: 2, Informative

      True, but this story submitted by deezl said "why not encourage free BitTorrent type distribution for their movies?".

      And as I read this again from a different perspective, perhaps deezl was calling out the makers of Celsius 41.11 because if you go to their site, no where does it say where or how or even if you can download their movie. Just lists how to get the DVD.

      --

      "Leo Fender was in a 'state of grace' when he designed the Stratocaster." -- Paul Reed Smith
    3. Re:But... by ageoffri · · Score: 3, Informative
      So is Michael Moore the only one allowed to make money off of his propaganda? I'd say that this organization is at least more honest with the money then Moore has ever been. They want you to donate to thier political organization to get the DVD. Moore just wants money for his next Big Mac.

      If you had bothered to watch the trailers you would see that 41.11C is what they are claiming the brain begins to die at. I'm no medical person so I have no idea if that is accurate.

      --
      -- Slashdot, making the Left look conservative since 1997.
    4. Re:But... by Lars+T. · · Score: 2, Funny

      And while we're at it, why didn't he deliver the DVD to my house for free?

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    5. Re:But... by eyeye · · Score: 3, Interesting

      What makes you think he even knows what bitorrent is?

      He was actually sending free copies of his DVD to any serviceperson abroad IIRC so he didnt "do nothing".

      --
      Bush and Blair ate my sig!
    6. Re:But... by bmetzler · · Score: 2, Insightful
      This Celsius 41.11 seems to be solely trying to make money off the success of F9/11. If they want to "get the facts straight," they wouldn't force us to pay $20 for them.

      Whine if they charge, whine if they don't. Can't make everyone happy. You think they should give the DVD away, this post complains that they do show the documentary for free.

      They must be bad, they are trying to make money off of it. No must be bad, they are giving it away.

      -Brent
    7. Re:But... by thoughtterrorist · · Score: 5, Informative

      The links explains it as "The temperature as which the brain begins to die". Modded insightful for being too lazy to visit the link, that's absurd..

      --
      If I told you that was last year, would you know what I meant?
    8. Re:But... by E_elven · · Score: 2, Informative

      An internal temperature of 41C will cause the risk of the brain starting to coagulate (like an egg), but one can briefly weather 41C out; anything over 42C is a hospital visit or serious risk of damage.

      --
      Marxist evolution is just N generations away!
    9. Re:But... by RevAaron · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah, those evil Dems are at it again! Not only do we want permission to pirate his film, but we want him to do the work for us! LAZY FAT BASTARD! Not willing to steal our movies for us!

      (sheesh)

      --

      Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
  2. Warning: Adult Content by JMandingo · · Score: 4, Informative

    The video has some shocking content. The worst was a clip of a kid getting his fingers chopped off. That almost made me ralph with the hangover I have this morning.

    --
    Vonnegut was right: Of all the words of mice and men, the saddest are, "It might have been."
    1. Re:Warning: Adult Content by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Calm down ya nancy boy. It's ok to show someone getting their fingers cut off. It's not like it's anal sex or flag burning or anything. It's especially ok since a republican did it. Hell, when the republicans are done putting spin on it, you'll think you NEED to see fingers getting cut off in footage. Hell, it already sounds very patriotic. I know I'm sold. Heck, since I already decided how I'm going to think months ago when I was brainwashed, I'm not going to let ANY facts or liberal douchebags influence my opinion no matter what!

  3. Facts... by cheeseSource · · Score: 2, Insightful

    There are no facts here or there or anywhere. There is only Zoul.

    Seriously, neither film is unbiased so those with an interest in a particular one pretty much know which way they are voting.

    --
    (Sponsored by cheeseSource for President 2012)
  4. Dang by daeley · · Score: 4, Funny

    Nothing like loading /. in the browser and seeing what at first glance appears to be your own rather obscure domain name in the first story next to "Michael Moore".

    Note to self: have more coffee before logging on /.

    --
    I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.
  5. Ok... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Having not particularly been impressed, well with any of Moore's movies, and having seen this. I'm filled with new found respect for Moore. They manage to make the tubby hack look, well pretty subtle and tactful. I'm not sure how they pulled that off....

    I like how they equate even rudimentary social programs with out of control totalitarianism.

    I mean I was a *little* tired of the latest excuse for liberating Iraq, "What you though Hussein was a nice person, well why do *you* live with him?" But seriously, they're making the obvious response, as grim and undignified as it is, look ever more appropriate.

  6. See it free!! by k4_pacific · · Score: 3, Informative

    Not only that, Citizens United is renting a theater in my hometown to show it for free. I guess that's the only way to get anyone to come if it's free. I wonder if the theater will bill them extra for having the coke syrup and bits of popcorn cleaned off the screen when they're done.

    Incidentally, the same theater charged for F9/11 with numerous soldout screenings.

    --
    Unknown host pong.
  7. I woke up on Fark by Karma+Farmer · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Wow. Only eight comments so far. I'm actually kind of sad about that. Do you guys have any idea what this thread would look like already on Fark?

    I wonder how many people (like me) are reluctant to post in Political threads because we will undoubtedly lose karma in the process. There are only so many (-1) flamebait posts I want to see next to my name, you know?

    --
    shut up barjockey, you cock

  8. Blame the Academy rules by Saint+Fnordius · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Micheal Moore had to walk a thin line concerning net distribution of the movie. If he had openly endorsed it, it would have been disqualified from the Academy Awards. By merely tolerating it, he was able to keep the Oscar hopes alive.

    Granted, the Oscar may not seem like much, but it is important to the producers and the financial backers.

    1. Re:Blame the Academy rules by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If he had openly endorsed it, it would have been disqualified from the Academy Awards.

      He's already been disqualified by leasing it for TV broadcast this year. It will be on next month.

      The real reason he couldn't put it online is that he doesn't have 100% copyright ownership. It's not his decision to make.

      but it is important to the producers and the financial backers.

      Not for this film. True, many movies get revitalized popularity after an Oscar win- but F911 has an onrushing expiration date. After the US election, nobody will care about it. All the profits need to come now. (And it's already earned far more than they hoped, which is why Moore is personally alright with free internet trading)

    2. Re:Blame the Academy rules by tordia · · Score: 2, Informative
      I believe his decision to broadcast the movie on tv disqualified it from winning the award for Best Documentary. The movie could still be in the running for Best Picture.

      I won't get into whether it has a chance to win Best Picture or not...

      --

      Frogs are primitive animals - so the occasional extra toe is not that unusual. But this is very unusual.

    3. Re:Blame the Academy rules by Methlin · · Score: 2, Funny

      One would think it being an editorial, and not a documentary, would disqualify it from winning the award for Best Documentary....

  9. You mean it's NOT true??? by sfjoe · · Score: 2, Funny


    Bush really didn't sit there on 9/11 like a useless moron for 7 minutes as the nation was under attack?
    That bastard Michael Moore!!!!

    --
    It's simple: I demand prosecution for torture.
    1. Re:You mean it's NOT true??? by Pinchy · · Score: 3, Funny

      Contrary to your sig, Bush never claimed Saddam was linked to 9/11.

      Yeah, he let's Cheney do that for him.

    2. Re:You mean it's NOT true??? by cryptochrome · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Contrary to your sig, Bush never claimed Saddam was linked to 9/11.
      He and his administration just insinuated it at every possible opportunity.

      --

      ---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?

    3. Re:You mean it's NOT true??? by hey! · · Score: 2, Funny

      Well, I truly despise Bush, but what was he supposed to do? Call Cheney and yell, "To the Bat Cave!"?

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    4. Re:You mean it's NOT true??? by damiam · · Score: 3, Insightful
      --
      It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
    5. Re:You mean it's NOT true??? by hankaholic · · Score: 2, Insightful
      [Y]ou can clearly see that when we bombed Osama out of Afghanistan he would have up and moved his training and operations right into Iraq. Bush took care of that and in the process showed the rest of the middle eastern countries what would happen if they thought to support Osama.
      So you're saying that the United States government is using systematic violence to coerce governments into refusing to harbor Bin Laden?

      Merriam-Webster defines terrorism as "the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion". They define "terror" as "violence (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands". Would this adequately describe the intent of the United States government in the Middle East?
      --
      Somebody get that guy an ambulance!
    6. Re:You mean it's NOT true??? by mvdwege · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Here you go:

      "Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaida"

      From the State of the Union 2003, straight from the horse's mouth.

      Mart
      --
      "I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
    7. Re:You mean it's NOT true??? by b-baggins · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So, let me get this straight. Bush didn't actually say there was a 9/11 link, but he implied it by making the accurate statement that Iraq harbored Al Qaeda, and therefore, because Iraq only harbored and supported Al Qaeda, but actually didn't give the order for 9/11, that Bush lied by stating Iraq harbored Al Qaeda and therefore misled us into war against Iraq.

      As The Dread Pirate Roberts would say: Truly you have a dizzying intellect.

      --
      You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
    8. Re:You mean it's NOT true??? by True+Grit · · Score: 2, Insightful
      You seem to be ignoring the part where kerry says he was paralized and unable to think for an hour

      LOL! And you seem to be ignoring the fact that Kerry wasn't the bloody President at that moment. There *was* nothing for him to do but do what the rest of us did and stare at the TV in disbelief. But hey, a free, cheap shot at Kerry is worth it every time to you guys, and the truth be damned, right?
  10. David Bossie by kaos_ · · Score: 5, Informative

    Some notes on David Bossie.

    1. Re:David Bossie by Sevn · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Not to be a dick, but us smarter Conservatives know that Bossie is a whackjob. He's right up there with Ann Coultier or however you spell her french name. Completely batshit nuts. He's one of our MANY Moores. He's like that strange uncle that nobody wants to admit is actual family.

      --
      For every annoying gentoo user, are three even more annoying anti-gentoo crybabies. Take Yosh from #Gimp for example.
  11. Other antidotes to "Fahrenheit 9/11" by yo · · Score: 5, Informative

    Two new films offer a rebuttal to the slanted views of Michael Moore. Michael Moore Hates America and FahrenHYPE 9/11 . Both are due to be released to DVD on October 5th to coincide with the DVD release of Fahrenheit 9/11. I have yet to see either of these films, but the trailers look compelling.

    For an detailed rebuttal of Fahrenheit 9/11 read Fifty-nine Deceits in Fahrenheit 9/11 .

    1. Re:Other antidotes to "Fahrenheit 9/11" by BoomerSooner · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Regardless of any liberties taken by Michael Moore the point of the documentary is valid. Bush started a war for profit not liberty.

      In the end people who support the war should go fight the damn thing. I'm tired of all these stupid fucking republicans in my state backing bush and like him, saying the war is good but not participating themselves.

      It's high time we let people vote for or against war. All those for the war go into the draft pool, all those against do not. I doubt people would be so pro-war if their ass were on the front line.

      Note: 1/2 my family is in the military, both my grandparents have purple hearts from WWII and I have 3 uncles who fought in Vietnam. Of course my Father (a Republican) is pro-war, however he (like our schmuck in chief) avoided Vietnam for himself. Hypocrites amaze me.

    2. Re:Other antidotes to "Fahrenheit 9/11" by (trb001) · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The fact you got a +2:Insightful for this makes me cringe.

      Bush started a war for profit not liberty.


      And I will wholeheartedly agree with you, when you or people like you provide a shred of grounded evidence supporting your point.

      It's high time we let people vote for or against war.

      We do, like we vote for most everything else, through our elected officials. I believe it was unanimous.

      --trb

    3. Re:Other antidotes to "Fahrenheit 9/11" by brandido · · Score: 3, Informative

      For a detailed rebuttal of David Kopel's detailed rebuttal of Fahrenheit 9/11, please check out Deception; Desperate Right Wing Attacks on Fahrenheit 9/11 or Debunking '59 Deceits in Fahrenheit 9/11'

      --
      First Falcon-1 to orbit, then Falcon-9. Then I can die a happy man.
    4. Re:Other antidotes to "Fahrenheit 9/11" by damiam · · Score: 3, Informative
      Hussein was a known problem, we'd tangled with him before.

      And what happened then? We decided not to take him out, because our president at the time had at least a shred of intelligence and could forsee the consequences:

      "Trying to eliminate Saddam .. would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible ... We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq ...there was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land."

      - George H. W. Bush

      --
      It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
  12. two welcomed movies by edalytical · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Anyone that wants to refute Moore's film is really missing the point of the film. That being said the rebuttals are just a necessary as the original film.

    Let me explain. Once you look past Mr. Moore's biased you'll see that the film is doing nothing more than asking the question that should have been asked by the media we already have in place. The media failed to do so, thus we have Moore's film filling in where they came up short. Does he get somethings wrong? Your goddamn right he does, but it doesn't mean we should ignore him completely.

    Now the same can be said for the rebuttal. Moore's obviously put his own spin on things (as he should) after all, all he's doing is connecting dots to make a point. He most likely went overboard with some of his assumptions. Now I haven't seen the new movie yet, but lets hope it fills the holes in Moore's movie and is not just an outright attack on Moore (I hope this makes my own biased completely clear).

    This shouldn't have to be said, but everyone should watch both movies and then make up their own minds.

    --
    Win a signed Stephen Carpenter ESP Guitar from the Deftones: http://def-tag.com/?r=0008781
  13. Another interesting take on 9/11 ... by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 2, Interesting

    911 in Plain Sight has an interesting DVD (scroll down to [Movies - DVD-R] 911 In Plane Site ,excelent new docu...)

    And here is a good commentary & rebuttal

    Peace

    --
    ALL civilizations eventually collapse.
    Or are you that ignorant and arrogant to assume that yours won't?

    Why?

    "The more corrupt the republic, the more numerous the laws" -- Tacitus, A.D. 55

  14. Re:meaning by Karma+Farmer · · Score: 4, Interesting

    They must be forced to use exceptionally accurate thermometers in hospitals in the rest of the world. Who would have guessed that they must measure down to 1/100th of a degree! It just makes it clear to me that metric is the wrong way to go.

    On an unrelated note, I have to ask why they had so many photos of planes flying into buildings, women in burkas, and the attack on the USS Cole. But all of the voiceover was eerily disconnected from the images. They kept talking about Iraq, while showing images from an unrelated war a half a world away in Afghanistan.

    What's the deal with that? Why would anyone want to relate Afghanistan and Iraq?

  15. Re:More Spin from the Right, thats Great by b-baggins · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ---
    We all know that BOTH sides spin the truth and they both just want to win.
    ---

    Which, of course, is what the side telling the lies wants you to believe.

    --
    You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
  16. Re:No, it's far worse than that. by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 4, Informative
    he shows a clip of some politician claiming "and we've set up an 800 number so you can call us and complain," and inserts a little subtitle claiming "this isn't true." The truth is that the phone number was (and still is) a 1-888 number

    Wrong. At the time F911 came out, there was no number at all. Only in response to the movie was the number created. (And it's not 888, either)

    The most balanced objective take on the file I've seen so far is the point by point list of deceits.

    I can already find multiple obvious lies in that file... and an even greater number of deciets (using truth in a misleading way). The single funniest mistake is #21, although it's irrelevant to the overall theme. The Crusader was NOT a missile! There's even some weird things like #35 and #36, which affirms a fact and then immediately claims it's not true- even though that same document just said so! #42 is funny too, because by those standards, the Bush Administration were also Al Quaeda collaborators.

    #58 is by far the gravest lie and reveals a true bias by the file's author:
    1. In Fahrenheit, Moore pretends to support our troops. But in fact, he supports the enemy
    In reality, he said the enemy was going to win; that's a pessimistic prediction, not a statement of support. For example, I don't support G.W. Bush, but I do say he's going to win re-election.

    Still, it would be nice to have a version of F911 containing only the facts, minus Moore's leading sarcasm. Bush would only come off worse if you actually sit there watching him for 7 minutes without a stream of jokes in the background. Maybe a special "no director commentary" feature on the DVD.
  17. In between by dpilot · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There's doing nothing. (What happened)
    There's running around in a panic. (What is suggested here as THE alternative.)

    Then again...

    I got the official 9/11 report for my birthday. I haven't had time to read it, but I have cracked it a little. I've also read another minute-by-minute account of the morning of 9/11, backed up by source links.

    The *real* crime of 9/11 had nothing to do with Bush, but rather with the link between the FAA and NORAD. FAA rules state that NORAD is to be notified immediately of all hijackings. There was a delay of nearly 1/2 hour between recognition of the first hijacking and NORAD acknowledgement. (This is from the other report, I need to verify this in the 9/11 report.)

    Next, in that first hour or so after the hijacking there appeared to be mass confusion between ATC and NORAD. There was uncertainty about how many hijackings, who should be looking where for what, etc. (Still from the other report.)

    Finally, within the space of a few minutes, the first jet hit the WTC, and the other 3 jets were hijacked. (From the 9/11 report) We were a half-hour into the confusion, with another half-hour to go, by which time the whole thing was pretty well over, except for the shouting.

    I don't know if anything could have been done to stop the first jet, after the hijacking. Ignoring the intelligence leading up to 9/11 is a different issue. But about the time one jet has crashed into a building and 3 more are known hijacked, we should have been into Full Response, instead of confusion.

    What would I want Bush to have done? Put someone in Charge. He was probably too far out of the loop, in Florida. But he should have put someone in Charge to tie together ATC, NORAD, and whoever else was appropriate.

    But then again, the famed 7-minute pause was *after* the 2nd jet crashed into the WTC. So even had he calmly stood up, excused himself, and taken/delegated control, it was too late. There's some question about whether or not he heard about the first jet hitting the WTC prior to entering the school. There's some question about those in the White House delaying feeding him info for 10 minutes or so. The findings: "A Failure of Imagination." Whatever happened to Truman's, "The Buck Stops Here?"

    The machine called "The US Government" had multiple failures that day. In fact, the only correct, effective response was by passengers. Grounding all air traffic was correct, and might have been effective had there been more jets-as-missiles planned, and did serve to restart air traffic with better security.

    Back to Moore... It's so fun to tear down 1-800 vs 1-888, and Enlisted vs Officers, etc that we just lose track of the other points where the facts were less tilted and more clear. The less disputed facts raise perhaps the more important questions, yet recieve little focus.

    But then that's been the way of this whole election cycle.

    --
    The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
  18. Re:WTF by KirkH · · Score: 2, Informative

    Check it: http://www.health.discovery.com/encyclopedias/946. html

    "A fever greater than 106 degrees Fahrenheit can result in brain damage and death in some cases."

    Guess what the coversion from 106 F is to C?

    It's pretty clever, I guess. And I don't think Bush had anything to do with this film, BTW.

  19. Someone likes it: $208,877,529 by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 2, Interesting


    Fact about Fahrenheit 9/11: It has been extraordinarily successful, grossing a fifth of a billion dollars on a $6 million investment.

    --
    Bush: Borrowing money to try to make his administration look good. Are you getting some of the $?

  20. Our polemic is better than your polemic! by raider_red · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Okay, I wasn't impressed at all with F9/11. I felt that it was a selective set of facts loosely assembled in such a way as to make the Bush administration look bad. It was almost purely a propaganda piece.

    Celsius whateveritis looks like an attempt to do the same thing in reverse. They've selectively assembled a bunch of facts to make President Bush look good and to make Michael Moore look bad. So basically, another propaganda piece trying to rebut the first.

    My recommendation is to do your homework, find your own facts, and draw your own conclusions. Don't listen to a bunch of blowhard filmmakers about who you should vote for.

    --
    It's good to use your head, but not as a battering ram.
  21. Just Curious... by DeComposer · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Who the hell is "G Squared Interactive?"

    Google's never heard of 'em; AnyWho's never heard of 'em; their phone number is either bogus or unlisted, ditto for their admin email address.

    WHOIS:
    www.citizensunited-interactive.org
    G Squared Interactive
    c/o Network Solutions
    Herndon, VA 20172-447
    (570) 708-8780
    pz74s7h92ge@networksolutionsprivateregistration.co m

    I suppose if I were making inflammatory political statements (right-wing, left-wing, or other-wing), I'd use anonymizers, too. But don't ICANN rules require legitimate contact info for domain registration?

    Just curious...

    --


    Karma