Apparently you don't know what "factual" or "non-fiction" means, either. Buy yourself a dictionary or use Google, read the definition, and then see how any documentary (including the ones that expose facts you find uncomfortable) fits in.
That's a lovely explanation about the supposed origins of the "expression" but:
a) I already knew all that (I think it's pretty much common knowledge). b) I was obviously not talking about kings, emperors or rulers; I was talking about the public. c) I never wrote "kill the messenger"; I wrote "shoot the messenger", which should give you a clue that I wasn't exactly talking about the middle ages.
So why not try to ignore the "origins of the expression" and look for its actual, direct, meaning? You know, ignore the subtext and look at the... er... text?
Perhaps Moore "wrote the message", in the sense that he gave it physical shape (like someone putting together a book of quotes, selecting the ones he likes best), but he's certainly not the author of the message's actual contents. Unless, again, you're suggesting some bizarre conspiracy in which Moore writes the speeches and policies of the Bush administration.
I case you completely missed the point of the film, the "message" is that there are some pretty shady relationships both within the USA's power structure (supreme court, election committee, state governors, candidates) and between some elements of that power structure and certain foreign rich families. The message of the film is also that the USA reacted to an attack carried out by people from that country (Saudi Arabia) by bombing a different country, and then invading a third country, killing thousands of soldiers and civilians in the process. And so on. The "message" isn't Moore's commentary, it's everything else (most of which was common knowledge - though not inside the USA, apparently).
And, instead of addressing these facts, some people prefer to attack Moore. As if he was somehow responsible for them. That's not only petty and stupid, it also reveals a huge lack of intellectual courage (because it tries to avoid even addressing the issues themselves).
It's irrelevant who Moore is, or what his opinion is, or how many other facts he left out of his movie. What is relevant is that the things shown in Fahrenheit 9/11 did happen (and were said by members of the current US administration). And no matter how much they say and do besides that, they still have to answer for that.
And the people supporting them (unless they are complete moral and intellectual invertebrates - and I suspect most are) need to stop dodging those issues and either support those actions or condemn them. When someone points out that you've done something wrong and you react by pointing out the mistakes of thers (instead of justifying or taking responsibility for yours), you continue to be incompetent, but you also become a coward.
As to "what I would have done" if I were president of a country, and someone had told me my country was under attack (or even that there had "just" been a really big accident), is what I think 90% of people (and 100% of presidents, except GWB) would have done.
And that is stop reading "My pet goat", say an urgent matter required my full attention, and immediately move to a safe location where I could monitor the situation and direct the reaction, with my staff. I'm pretty sure that's what Rudy Giuliani (for example) did.
What Bush did wasn't "being cool" and "decision making", it was precisely the opposite. It was being so stupid he was unable to make a decision. No-one told him what to do, so he didn't do anything. He sat there, for seven minutes, reading a book written for 4 year olds, while his house was on fire.
The simple fact that you're trying to defend this shows that you have thrown any kind of logical reasoning out the door.
I've been on/. a long time, and I can't remember ever reading any post so smooth
I would feel flattered, but I suspect you just have poor memory.
Your intellectually inane defense of Moore
I never "defended Moore". First, because he doesn't need any defence (especially from "attacks" as pathetic as the ones on this thread), and second because I actually find him a bit annoying.
I merely pointed out that "carefully selected" facts are still facts, and that a documentary is not required (either legally or formally) to be impartial - quite the contrary. The definition of documentary (as applied to documentary films, by authors, critics, etc.), usually implies a deliberate effort to show a specific point of view, and make a critique of the subject being treated.
Now, informative journalism ("reporting") is supposed to be impartial and show all sides of the issues, and often it's not. But that's a different issue.
Documentaries are and have always been opinion pieces.
Most people who accuse Moore of making "false" (or "bad") documentaries do so simply because they disagree with his opinions, find the facts exposed in his documentaries uncomfortable, but can't actually deny them. So they start shooting in random directions (often hitting themselves on the foot in the process).
It's the good ol' "hysterical rethoric" principle:
If the facts are against you, use logic. If logic is against you, use the facts. If both logic and the facts are against you, cry bloody murder.
Is it, or is it not, possible to deceive without telling an outright lie? Is it, or is it not, possible to present a impression you know is false by selective omission of facts?
Of course. Otherwise there wouldn't be any marketing departments. But a lie is a lie. And if a company's marketing department lies, the people affected by that lie can fight back. It happened recently with some Apple and Microsoft ads, for example. They were found to contain objective lies, so they were banned.
The same is valid for documentaries (or fiction films, speeches, even opinion pieces in magazines). If you lie and if your lie objectively harms someone, that individual (or company, group, etc.) can take you to court (in most countries, anyway).
Your lengthy discourse suggests [...] that such deceptions are simply a matter of one's "point of view." Is this in fact what you are trying to say?
I am "trying to say" exactly what I said. That Moore's point of view is that the Bush administration is bad for the USA (and its citizens, and the world), and that he's going to use every second of his film to show arguments that support that point of view. Expecting him to point out arguments that go against his conclusions would be like expecting Apple to publish documents pointing out the advantages of Linux and Windows.
It's not as if there isn't enough pro-Bush propaganda around (namely in places - like certain news networks - that are supposed to be impartial).
that's NOT what you said in your earlier post, the one to which I was replying
Anyone can read your reply, click on the link at the bottom, labelled "parent", and see which post you were replying to. And anyone who does that will see that you are (and I use the word with its full meaning) lying. You are a liar.
In other words
Those really are other words, in the sense that they aren't the words I wrote (as you know, and as anyone can check, but you're so deep into unfounded rethoric you don't even care anymore, eh?).
Moore certainly not is the messenger, he wrote the message.
Excuse me? Are you saying he told Bush to sit for 7 minutes holding a children's book while the USA was being attacked? Are you saying he ordered the american generals to invade Iraq, or that he made up the supposed "evidence" about weapons that never existed? Are you saying the news clips shown in Fahrenheit 9/11 (with Bush, Rumsfeld, Rice, etc.) were written or directed by Moore?
Because that is the message. It speaks for itself. The rest is a few interviews and some (more or less obvious, and frankly unnecessary) commentary. Moore's commentary is there to do the same as the canned laughs in Seinfeld - to tell people that it's okay to laugh (or, in this case, to feel outraged). That doesn't make the jokes any less funny, and people who don't need the canned laughs to feel comfortable with their own laughs can simply ignore them.
So if you don't need (or like) Moore's commentary, just ignore it. The film stands up quite well without it. I admit I find his voice a bit annoying.
But, back to the subject.
Living in Europe, I really couldn't understand why there was such a big fuss about Fahrenheit 9/11, because I had already seen nearly all of those clips, documents, etc..
Then I found out that most of that had never been shown inside the USA. And that makes me even more worried about what the USA is becoming.
P.S. - Yes, I'm sure that the fact the movie is called "Fahrenhype 911" is just a coicidence, and is in no way a direct reaction against Michael Moore or his films... [rolls his eyes]
The world is a cold, inhospitable place for us dumb guys.
On the contrary, you have a lot of company.
you very carefully avoid any mention of Kopel's "Lies in Fahrenheit 911."
"Very carefully"? Again, is that supposed to mean something, or just sound witty and clever? Because, again, it fails. I don't mention it because a) I didn't read all of it and b) the parts I did read never mentioned any lies; it simply pointed out that "Moore's language is such that it leads people to believe that (etc., etc.)". In other words, the only objective accusations it makes are that Moore is focusing on one side of the story and avoids shooting himself on the foot. Well, duh! Moore never tried to hide the fact that he's presenting his point of view, and is obviously going to use all of his film's frames to present evidence that supports it.
I guess what I just don't understand about the whole thing is that Moore isn't just lying to ME. He's lying to YOU, and all his audience.
You're right; you don't understand. He isn't lying. He's presenting his point of view (which happens to be shared by many people, BTW), and the evidence that led him to have that point of view. Apparently you think that, since you have a different point of view, which his evidence does not support (in fact, one that's rather hard to maintain, in face of that evidence), then "he's a liar". But that's simply not what "lying" means.
Perhaps he's not telling "the whole truth" (can anyone, in finite time?). Perhaps his conclusions (expressed in his narration) are not the same conclusions you or I would reach, based on the same evidence. But neither of those things is lying.
Frankly, I found Fahrenheit 9/11 a bit boring. Most of it I already knew (from the internet, international news channels and other documentaries, like "Exposed: the Carlyle Group"), and the other bits are simply not very interesting (maybe they appeal to americans). I would definitely have focused more on the disrespect for international law, the ridiculous lies to the UN and the reactions of other countries (beautifully condensed in the german foreign minister's reply), Guantanamo, etc., and less on individual stories about soldiers. I guess most americans (possibly Moore included) care more about 1 dead american soldier than about 100 innocent foreigners being kept prisioner and tortured.
But anyway, nearly all of Fahrenheit 9/11 is "second-hand" material. Clips from TV news, quotes from official papers, etc.. And the rest is interviews and Moore's commentary (which the movie could live without, in fact, and not lose any of its impact - but Moore loves to be on the spotlight). Unless you're saying the video was somehow altered, or the wording in the official documents was changed, there is simply no way you can classify it as "lies", unless you don't understand the meaning of the word.
I don't have the time or inclination to give a discourse about the American legal concept of "standing." But Google is your friend, my friend,
First of all, I am not your friend. And second, I really have better and more important things to do than look up information about a useless subject on which (as it turns out below) I was actually right to begin with.
not just anyone in the U.S. can sue anyone for any reason.
Did I ever say that "anyone can sue anyone for any reason"? Or are you just engaging in some "half-truths" and "misleading statements"...?
Need me to repeat what I said? Here:
"anyone who thinks that Moore's "lies" are personally damaging has the right to proceed legally against him (as long as he or she can prove that they are, in fact, lies)."
I would have to show standing -- i.e., that *I* was tangibly harmed by those lies.
In other words, exactly what I wrote above. So basically you're calling me an ignorant and then "correcting" me by repe
Funny how that site gives you a definition for the noun and a definition for the adjective and you decided to quote the wrong one, eh? Creative quoting, I guess.
Here's the other one (for the noun, from the very same page):
"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" (fits Fahrenheit 9/11 like a glove, more so than any of Moore's previous documentaries, in fact).
But let's see what specialised sites have to say about it:
[1] "an interpretation of theoretical, factual, political, social or historical events or issues presented either objectively or with a specific point of view"
[2] "a nonfiction motion picture film having a theme or viewpoint but drawing its material from actual events and using editing and sound to enhance the theme"
[3] "a non-fiction film which usually, although not always, has a particular point of view regarding its subject matter"
[4] "an eligible documentary film is defined as a theatrically released non-fiction motion picture dealing creatively with cultural, artistic, historical, social, scientific, economic or other subjects"
[5] "factual footage arranged in such a way that it informs and expresses a point of view"
I've been working on (and watching) documentaries for a couple of decades, and these are the definitions employed and accepted by the authors, the industry, the critics, the festivals and the viewers. If you think a documentary is something else, you can either a) correct yourself or b) try to convice every filmmaker, film institute, film festival, cinema historian, etc., that they are wrong.
No, his statement was pretty clear, and if you don't understnad it, that's your problem. What he said was that people who accuse him of lying without providing any evidence will be sued. Virtually any company or "publicly visible" individual will do the same. It has nothing to do with "silencing people who disagree".
You're free to disagree with anyone you like (if you live in a reasonably free country, anyway). But if you want to accuse someone of lying, you need evidence, otherwise it's libel.
Is it? Looks pretty normal to me, but I respect your incomprehension.
All that is great. Except, as it has been pointed out AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN, Moore is not being criticized for *having a point of view.* He is being criticized for the half-truths, misleading evasions and outright lies he uses to *support* his point of view.
"Half-truths" and "misleading evasions" (pointing out what one considers the bad - and therefore urgent - aspects of an issue and considering that some things are not relevant) are what's called "having a point of view".
As to the "outright lies" that you mention, I have yet to see anyone provide evidence that they exist. Nearly all of Fahrenheit 9/11 consists of video clips from news networks and interviews (with senators, the mother of a dead soldier, etc.). Unless you're saying the interviews were staged (ex., the woman's son did not die in Iraq) or that the video was doctored (ex., Bush did not sit there reading a children's book while his country was being attacked), I don't see how any of it can be "outright lies".
I am sure, given your expertise, that you're familiar with the basic legal concept of "standing"!
Given my "expertise"? What expertise? Is that supposed to mean something or just sound clever? Either way, I think it fails.
I have no idea what the details of the american legal system are (want to discuss the EU's import legislation?), but I think you do have legislation that covers slander / libel / defamation (I've read news coverage of similar cases). If any of the facts presented in a documentary can be shown to be false (not "incomplete" - false), then anyone objectively affected by that falsehood has the right to defend his or her good name and interests, and demand indemnization and / or a public apology.
In fact, I believe this extends to works of fiction, and that's why most movies include a disclaimer saying that "any similarities with real people or events are pure coincidence" - to avoid being sued by anyone who feels personally insulted or exploited.
In other words, if Moore says "there is clear evidence that everyone that eats at McDonald's is a fat slob", then anyone that does eat at McDonald's (or any of the owners, or employees, etc.) and feels offended by that (false) statement, can sue him.
So anyone who thinks that Moore's "lies" are personally damaging has the right to proceed legally against him (as long as he or she can prove that they are, in fact, lies). And, AFAIK, no-one has.
Thinking that there is anything in the movie that wasn't checked 50 times would be giving Moore, Lion's Gate and Miramax a certificate of incompetence.
Those films are about Moore and Moore's movies. They are not about the other side of the issues Moore exposes.
They do not show any evidence that the invasion of Iraq was justified, they do not show any evidence that bin Ladin's family wasn't whisked away from the USA two days after the WTC attack, they do not show any evidence that Bush jumped into action as soon as he heard about the attacks instead of reading "My pet goat", and so on.
That would have been showing the other side of the story. The only thing a movie (or a book, or a site) about Moore achieves is boosting Moore's ego even more, and making him more important than he is.
The important thing about Fahrenheit 9/11 is not that it was made by Michael Moore (it wasn't, really, 80% of the movie is clips from news networks, etc., and was common knowledge, at least to people outside the USA). It's the issues it calls people's attention to.
And that's what some people try to avoid. Focus on Moore (or whoever the messenger is), try to divert people's attention from the message.
Moore didn't tell tell Paul Wolfowitz to lick his comb. He didn't tell Bush to read a children's book while his country was being attacked. He didn't drop bombs on Afghan and Iraqi civilians (many of whom actually admired the USA, and now hate it - the ones that lived, anyway). He didn't tell Colin Powell to go to the UN's general assembly and say that the USA had proof that Saddam had WMDs. Those things actually happened. All Moore did was put together news clips about those events and shout "hey, watch this".
And he's the bad guy? I don't get it. Yes, he's fat and vain, but being fat and vain doesn't make you wrong when you're right.
Again, you don't seem to have a point. You just shoot in random directions hoping to divert attention from the fact that your previous arguments don't stand up no matter how much Viagra you give them.
The article you linked to (with a really unbiased title, BTW, nice to see you support informative journalism) simply states the obvious: that if anyone accuses Moore of lying and does not provide any proof of those accusations, Moore will sue them. If they are able to come up with proof, then Moore will, of course, lose. In fact, that much is pretty obvious even without Microsoft's on-line magazine editor writing empty, hysterical articles about it.
How is Moore (or any other documentarist) preventing anyone else from expressing their point of view...?
I don't think even you know what you mean.
Your "point" is that, because someone disagrees with you, or exposes facts that you find uncomfortable, then he needs to be silenced and labelled "a liar".
Again, if you think that there are any lies in Fahrenheit 9/11, you won't have any trouble finding people to pay for your lawyers (people who would definitely like to see Moore silenced, precisely because they know the facts he exposes are true). But of course, it's easier to just post unfounded accusations on Slashdot behind a false name, isn't it?
If I interview 20 people and 6 of them agree with me and I only use those 6 to support my point of view even though 14 disagreed then did I represent "fact"?
Yes. Documentaries are not statistics and are not reporting. A documentary is simply a movie based on real people and real events, period. Documentarists have always presented their point of view - in fact, most people agree that that's preciely the point of documentaries (Moore actually got the highest american award for best documentary, remember?).
Unfortunately, some people (like you) think that the only people allowed to express their point of view are the ones they agree with. Maybe you should apply for a job with the KGB (or, the way things are going, with the Bush administration).
If you think anything in Fahrenheit 9/11 is a lie, sue Moore and get rich. I'm sure you'll find plenty of people willing to finance your legal expenses (as long as they don't have to go public). For some reason no-one has...
And if you think that "the other side of the story" stands up, go make a documentary showing it (it's not as if you need a huge budget or a big crew). Again, for some reason no-one has...
This is expected to be Doohan's last public appearance as he suffers from Parkinson's disease, diabetes and lung fibrosis as well as recently diagnosed Alzheimer's disease.
...was the original Logitech MouseMan+, with the rubber on the sides and the buttons that extended to the edge of the mouse. Looked weird (ugly, even), but it's "the" mouse for (right-handed) people with big hands.
Then they completely screwed it up when they made the optical model, by reducing the size of the buttons (original on the right, optical models on the left and centre).
Currently, the best compromise is probably the "MX" series, also from Logitech (a company I don't like much, but they do manage to get it right now and then), especially the MX-500 and above. The main buttons are very well designed, and the side buttons are reasonable. The scroll wheel and the other buttons are too far back on the mouse, though; to reach them you have to either bend your fingers or move your hand back so it actually rests off the mouse.
And, of course, Logitech's mouse drivers are crap (can't even turn acceleration off completely). Stick to the default OS drivers and you'll be fine.
If they're working on the localised versions, I should bloody well expect that they know the language and culture of the country they're trying to sell to.
Nope, "bitch" in Portuguese is "cadela" (brazilians tend to use "cachorra", but in both cases it means bitch, never girl or woman). The issue is a slightly different one. In Portugal, we use several words for "girl": "menina", "moça", "rapariga", "miúda", etc.
One of the most common ones is "rapariga" (feminin of "rapaz", which means "lad"). In Brazil, "rapariga" is usually used to describe a prostitute (although technically it means the same - a young woman).
A more interesting word is "puto". In standard Portuguese, it means "kid" (boy). In brazilian Portuguese it means "male prostitute". So, as you can imagine, when a portuguese writer (Altino Tojal) published a book called "Os putos" ("The kids"), in the 1970s, the brazilians thought Portugal (then a religious dictatorship!) was a really open society...;-)
The feminin ("puta") does mean the same in both dialects.;-)
Another interesting word is "Durex". In Brazil, it means sticky tape. In Portugal everyone knows it as a condom brand (although Control is more popular, and if you've used both, you know why). A couple of years ago, a (female) brazilian friend of mine came to Portugal, and needed some tape. She went to an office supply store and asked for "some Durex". The woman behind the counter looked at her as if she was some sort of nut and told her "well, if you want Durex, go to the chemist's!". She found this rather odd, but did as she was told. She walked into a pharmacy and asked for Durex. The chemist said "what type?", and she said "well, any type will do, I really need it quickly". The chamist said "well, what amount do you want?". Se held her hands about 70 cm apart and said "well, a piece about this big".
I can't help but be reminded of the gully dwarves from Dragonlance when reading this.
Never mind the dwarves; much better are the frogs in Pratchett's Bromeliad Trilogy (Truckers, Diggers and Wings). They're binary; they can only count up to one. So when one of the frogs comes out of its flower and sees all the other flowers, each with one frog, it counts them: One, plus... one, plus one, plus one, plus one, plus one, plus one... which adds up to... er... one.
I expect you mean a silence / tone generator for video. If so, I have a couple, too (work in post-production).
There are also sound systems designed to reduce noise (ex., noise cancelling headphones or speakers), but they're "anti-noise" generators, not silence generators (and only work for specific positions, with limited efficiency).
How about writing an e-mail to the article's author, explaining his mistake? I just did that, and in 5 minutes he corrected the article. It now says:
"Brought to the John St. Pumping Station, the lake water is used to cool down other water that will then be used to lower the temperature in downtown buildings."
There. I would probably have mentioned something about "heat exchange", but the current version is not too scary for Joe Below Average and is technically correct.
Slashdot Mirror
Apparently you don't know what "factual" or "non-fiction" means, either. Buy yourself a dictionary or use Google, read the definition, and then see how any documentary (including the ones that expose facts you find uncomfortable) fits in.
RMN
~~~
That's a lovely explanation about the supposed origins of the "expression" but:
a) I already knew all that (I think it's pretty much common knowledge).
b) I was obviously not talking about kings, emperors or rulers; I was talking about the public.
c) I never wrote "kill the messenger"; I wrote "shoot the messenger", which should give you a clue that I wasn't exactly talking about the middle ages.
So why not try to ignore the "origins of the expression" and look for its actual, direct, meaning? You know, ignore the subtext and look at the... er... text?
Perhaps Moore "wrote the message", in the sense that he gave it physical shape (like someone putting together a book of quotes, selecting the ones he likes best), but he's certainly not the author of the message's actual contents. Unless, again, you're suggesting some bizarre conspiracy in which Moore writes the speeches and policies of the Bush administration.
I case you completely missed the point of the film, the "message" is that there are some pretty shady relationships both within the USA's power structure (supreme court, election committee, state governors, candidates) and between some elements of that power structure and certain foreign rich families. The message of the film is also that the USA reacted to an attack carried out by people from that country (Saudi Arabia) by bombing a different country, and then invading a third country, killing thousands of soldiers and civilians in the process. And so on. The "message" isn't Moore's commentary, it's everything else (most of which was common knowledge - though not inside the USA, apparently).
And, instead of addressing these facts, some people prefer to attack Moore. As if he was somehow responsible for them. That's not only petty and stupid, it also reveals a huge lack of intellectual courage (because it tries to avoid even addressing the issues themselves).
It's irrelevant who Moore is, or what his opinion is, or how many other facts he left out of his movie. What is relevant is that the things shown in Fahrenheit 9/11 did happen (and were said by members of the current US administration). And no matter how much they say and do besides that, they still have to answer for that.
And the people supporting them (unless they are complete moral and intellectual invertebrates - and I suspect most are) need to stop dodging those issues and either support those actions or condemn them. When someone points out that you've done something wrong and you react by pointing out the mistakes of thers (instead of justifying or taking responsibility for yours), you continue to be incompetent, but you also become a coward.
As to "what I would have done" if I were president of a country, and someone had told me my country was under attack (or even that there had "just" been a really big accident), is what I think 90% of people (and 100% of presidents, except GWB) would have done.
And that is stop reading "My pet goat", say an urgent matter required my full attention, and immediately move to a safe location where I could monitor the situation and direct the reaction, with my staff. I'm pretty sure that's what Rudy Giuliani (for example) did.
What Bush did wasn't "being cool" and "decision making", it was precisely the opposite. It was being so stupid he was unable to make a decision. No-one told him what to do, so he didn't do anything. He sat there, for seven minutes, reading a book written for 4 year olds, while his house was on fire.
The simple fact that you're trying to defend this shows that you have thrown any kind of logical reasoning out the door.
RMN
~~~
Get real...
Why don't you follow your own advice and stop posting as an anonymous coward?
Today I asked 15 preschoolers what 1+1 is they ALL said 3.
I think you are lying. I think you are a liar, besides being a coward.
RMN
~~~
I've been on /. a long time, and I can't remember ever reading any post so smooth
I would feel flattered, but I suspect you just have poor memory.
Your intellectually inane defense of Moore
I never "defended Moore". First, because he doesn't need any defence (especially from "attacks" as pathetic as the ones on this thread), and second because I actually find him a bit annoying.
I merely pointed out that "carefully selected" facts are still facts, and that a documentary is not required (either legally or formally) to be impartial - quite the contrary. The definition of documentary (as applied to documentary films, by authors, critics, etc.), usually implies a deliberate effort to show a specific point of view, and make a critique of the subject being treated.
Now, informative journalism ("reporting") is supposed to be impartial and show all sides of the issues, and often it's not. But that's a different issue.
Documentaries are and have always been opinion pieces.
Most people who accuse Moore of making "false" (or "bad") documentaries do so simply because they disagree with his opinions, find the facts exposed in his documentaries uncomfortable, but can't actually deny them. So they start shooting in random directions (often hitting themselves on the foot in the process).
It's the good ol' "hysterical rethoric" principle:
If the facts are against you, use logic. If logic is against you, use the facts. If both logic and the facts are against you, cry bloody murder.
Is it, or is it not, possible to deceive without telling an outright lie? Is it, or is it not, possible to present a impression you know is false by selective omission of facts?
Of course. Otherwise there wouldn't be any marketing departments. But a lie is a lie. And if a company's marketing department lies, the people affected by that lie can fight back. It happened recently with some Apple and Microsoft ads, for example. They were found to contain objective lies, so they were banned.
The same is valid for documentaries (or fiction films, speeches, even opinion pieces in magazines). If you lie and if your lie objectively harms someone, that individual (or company, group, etc.) can take you to court (in most countries, anyway).
Your lengthy discourse suggests [...] that such deceptions are simply a matter of one's "point of view." Is this in fact what you are trying to say?
I am "trying to say" exactly what I said. That Moore's point of view is that the Bush administration is bad for the USA (and its citizens, and the world), and that he's going to use every second of his film to show arguments that support that point of view. Expecting him to point out arguments that go against his conclusions would be like expecting Apple to publish documents pointing out the advantages of Linux and Windows.
It's not as if there isn't enough pro-Bush propaganda around (namely in places - like certain news networks - that are supposed to be impartial).
that's NOT what you said in your earlier post, the one to which I was replying
Anyone can read your reply, click on the link at the bottom, labelled "parent", and see which post you were replying to. And anyone who does that will see that you are (and I use the word with its full meaning) lying. You are a liar.
In other words
Those really are other words, in the sense that they aren't the words I wrote (as you know, and as anyone can check, but you're so deep into unfounded rethoric you don't even care anymore, eh?).
You say the original po
Moore certainly not is the messenger, he wrote the message.
Excuse me? Are you saying he told Bush to sit for 7 minutes holding a children's book while the USA was being attacked? Are you saying he ordered the american generals to invade Iraq, or that he made up the supposed "evidence" about weapons that never existed? Are you saying the news clips shown in Fahrenheit 9/11 (with Bush, Rumsfeld, Rice, etc.) were written or directed by Moore?
Because that is the message. It speaks for itself. The rest is a few interviews and some (more or less obvious, and frankly unnecessary) commentary. Moore's commentary is there to do the same as the canned laughs in Seinfeld - to tell people that it's okay to laugh (or, in this case, to feel outraged). That doesn't make the jokes any less funny, and people who don't need the canned laughs to feel comfortable with their own laughs can simply ignore them.
So if you don't need (or like) Moore's commentary, just ignore it. The film stands up quite well without it. I admit I find his voice a bit annoying.
But, back to the subject.
Living in Europe, I really couldn't understand why there was such a big fuss about Fahrenheit 9/11, because I had already seen nearly all of those clips, documents, etc..
Then I found out that most of that had never been shown inside the USA. And that makes me even more worried about what the USA is becoming.
P.S. - Yes, I'm sure that the fact the movie is called "Fahrenhype 911" is just a coicidence, and is in no way a direct reaction against Michael Moore or his films... [rolls his eyes]
The world is a cold, inhospitable place for us dumb guys.
On the contrary, you have a lot of company.
you very carefully avoid any mention of Kopel's "Lies in Fahrenheit 911."
"Very carefully"? Again, is that supposed to mean something, or just sound witty and clever? Because, again, it fails. I don't mention it because a) I didn't read all of it and b) the parts I did read never mentioned any lies; it simply pointed out that "Moore's language is such that it leads people to believe that (etc., etc.)". In other words, the only objective accusations it makes are that Moore is focusing on one side of the story and avoids shooting himself on the foot. Well, duh! Moore never tried to hide the fact that he's presenting his point of view, and is obviously going to use all of his film's frames to present evidence that supports it.
I guess what I just don't understand about the whole thing is that Moore isn't just lying to ME. He's lying to YOU, and all his audience.
You're right; you don't understand. He isn't lying. He's presenting his point of view (which happens to be shared by many people, BTW), and the evidence that led him to have that point of view. Apparently you think that, since you have a different point of view, which his evidence does not support (in fact, one that's rather hard to maintain, in face of that evidence), then "he's a liar". But that's simply not what "lying" means.
Perhaps he's not telling "the whole truth" (can anyone, in finite time?). Perhaps his conclusions (expressed in his narration) are not the same conclusions you or I would reach, based on the same evidence. But neither of those things is lying.
Frankly, I found Fahrenheit 9/11 a bit boring. Most of it I already knew (from the internet, international news channels and other documentaries, like "Exposed: the Carlyle Group"), and the other bits are simply not very interesting (maybe they appeal to americans). I would definitely have focused more on the disrespect for international law, the ridiculous lies to the UN and the reactions of other countries (beautifully condensed in the german foreign minister's reply), Guantanamo, etc., and less on individual stories about soldiers. I guess most americans (possibly Moore included) care more about 1 dead american soldier than about 100 innocent foreigners being kept prisioner and tortured.
But anyway, nearly all of Fahrenheit 9/11 is "second-hand" material. Clips from TV news, quotes from official papers, etc.. And the rest is interviews and Moore's commentary (which the movie could live without, in fact, and not lose any of its impact - but Moore loves to be on the spotlight). Unless you're saying the video was somehow altered, or the wording in the official documents was changed, there is simply no way you can classify it as "lies", unless you don't understand the meaning of the word.
I don't have the time or inclination to give a discourse about the American legal concept of "standing." But Google is your friend, my friend,
First of all, I am not your friend. And second, I really have better and more important things to do than look up information about a useless subject on which (as it turns out below) I was actually right to begin with.
not just anyone in the U.S. can sue anyone for any reason.
Did I ever say that "anyone can sue anyone for any reason"? Or are you just engaging in some "half-truths" and "misleading statements"...?
Need me to repeat what I said? Here:
"anyone who thinks that Moore's "lies" are personally damaging has the right to proceed legally against him (as long as he or she can prove that they are, in fact, lies)."
I would have to show standing -- i.e., that *I* was tangibly harmed by those lies.
In other words, exactly what I wrote above. So basically you're calling me an ignorant and then "correcting" me by repe
Funny how that site gives you a definition for the noun and a definition for the adjective and you decided to quote the wrong one, eh? Creative quoting, I guess.
Here's the other one (for the noun, from the very same page):
"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" (fits Fahrenheit 9/11 like a glove, more so than any of Moore's previous documentaries, in fact).
But let's see what specialised sites have to say about it:
[1] "an interpretation of theoretical, factual, political, social or historical events or issues presented either objectively or with a specific point of view"
[2] "a nonfiction motion picture film having a theme or viewpoint but drawing its material from actual events and using editing and sound to enhance the theme"
[3] "a non-fiction film which usually, although not always, has a particular point of view regarding its subject matter"
[4] "an eligible documentary film is defined as a theatrically released non-fiction motion picture dealing creatively with cultural, artistic, historical, social, scientific, economic or other subjects"
[5] "factual footage arranged in such a way that it informs and expresses a point of view"
I've been working on (and watching) documentaries for a couple of decades, and these are the definitions employed and accepted by the authors, the industry, the critics, the festivals and the viewers. If you think a documentary is something else, you can either a) correct yourself or b) try to convice every filmmaker, film institute, film festival, cinema historian, etc., that they are wrong.
Either way, good luck, it's not going to be easy.
RMN
~~~
That's a movie about Michael Moore, and Moore's films. It's not a movie about the supposed "other side" of the issues Moore exposes.
Trying to shoot the messenger and divert people's attention from the message.
No, his statement was pretty clear, and if you don't understnad it, that's your problem. What he said was that people who accuse him of lying without providing any evidence will be sued. Virtually any company or "publicly visible" individual will do the same. It has nothing to do with "silencing people who disagree".
You're free to disagree with anyone you like (if you live in a reasonably free country, anyway). But if you want to accuse someone of lying, you need evidence, otherwise it's libel.
Go it?
RMN
~~~
That's a movie about Michael Moore, and Moore's films. It's not a movie about the supposed "other side" of the issues Moore exposes.
Trying to shoot the messenger and divert people's attention from the message.
This post is just weird.
Is it? Looks pretty normal to me, but I respect your incomprehension.
All that is great. Except, as it has been pointed out AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN, Moore is not being criticized for *having a point of view.* He is being criticized for the half-truths, misleading evasions and outright lies he uses to *support* his point of view.
"Half-truths" and "misleading evasions" (pointing out what one considers the bad - and therefore urgent - aspects of an issue and considering that some things are not relevant) are what's called "having a point of view".
As to the "outright lies" that you mention, I have yet to see anyone provide evidence that they exist. Nearly all of Fahrenheit 9/11 consists of video clips from news networks and interviews (with senators, the mother of a dead soldier, etc.). Unless you're saying the interviews were staged (ex., the woman's son did not die in Iraq) or that the video was doctored (ex., Bush did not sit there reading a children's book while his country was being attacked), I don't see how any of it can be "outright lies".
I am sure, given your expertise, that you're familiar with the basic legal concept of "standing"!
Given my "expertise"? What expertise? Is that supposed to mean something or just sound clever? Either way, I think it fails.
I have no idea what the details of the american legal system are (want to discuss the EU's import legislation?), but I think you do have legislation that covers slander / libel / defamation (I've read news coverage of similar cases). If any of the facts presented in a documentary can be shown to be false (not "incomplete" - false), then anyone objectively affected by that falsehood has the right to defend his or her good name and interests, and demand indemnization and / or a public apology.
In fact, I believe this extends to works of fiction, and that's why most movies include a disclaimer saying that "any similarities with real people or events are pure coincidence" - to avoid being sued by anyone who feels personally insulted or exploited.
In other words, if Moore says "there is clear evidence that everyone that eats at McDonald's is a fat slob", then anyone that does eat at McDonald's (or any of the owners, or employees, etc.) and feels offended by that (false) statement, can sue him.
So anyone who thinks that Moore's "lies" are personally damaging has the right to proceed legally against him (as long as he or she can prove that they are, in fact, lies). And, AFAIK, no-one has.
Thinking that there is anything in the movie that wasn't checked 50 times would be giving Moore, Lion's Gate and Miramax a certificate of incompetence.
RMN
~~~
Those films are about Moore and Moore's movies. They are not about the other side of the issues Moore exposes.
They do not show any evidence that the invasion of Iraq was justified, they do not show any evidence that bin Ladin's family wasn't whisked away from the USA two days after the WTC attack, they do not show any evidence that Bush jumped into action as soon as he heard about the attacks instead of reading "My pet goat", and so on.
That would have been showing the other side of the story. The only thing a movie (or a book, or a site) about Moore achieves is boosting Moore's ego even more, and making him more important than he is.
The important thing about Fahrenheit 9/11 is not that it was made by Michael Moore (it wasn't, really, 80% of the movie is clips from news networks, etc., and was common knowledge, at least to people outside the USA). It's the issues it calls people's attention to.
And that's what some people try to avoid. Focus on Moore (or whoever the messenger is), try to divert people's attention from the message.
Moore didn't tell tell Paul Wolfowitz to lick his comb. He didn't tell Bush to read a children's book while his country was being attacked. He didn't drop bombs on Afghan and Iraqi civilians (many of whom actually admired the USA, and now hate it - the ones that lived, anyway). He didn't tell Colin Powell to go to the UN's general assembly and say that the USA had proof that Saddam had WMDs. Those things actually happened. All Moore did was put together news clips about those events and shout "hey, watch this".
And he's the bad guy? I don't get it. Yes, he's fat and vain, but being fat and vain doesn't make you wrong when you're right.
RMN
~~~
Again, you don't seem to have a point. You just shoot in random directions hoping to divert attention from the fact that your previous arguments don't stand up no matter how much Viagra you give them.
The article you linked to (with a really unbiased title, BTW, nice to see you support informative journalism) simply states the obvious: that if anyone accuses Moore of lying and does not provide any proof of those accusations, Moore will sue them. If they are able to come up with proof, then Moore will, of course, lose. In fact, that much is pretty obvious even without Microsoft's on-line magazine editor writing empty, hysterical articles about it.
So what is your point?
RMN
~~~
How is Moore (or any other documentarist) preventing anyone else from expressing their point of view...?
I don't think even you know what you mean.
Your "point" is that, because someone disagrees with you, or exposes facts that you find uncomfortable, then he needs to be silenced and labelled "a liar".
Again, if you think that there are any lies in Fahrenheit 9/11, you won't have any trouble finding people to pay for your lawyers (people who would definitely like to see Moore silenced, precisely because they know the facts he exposes are true). But of course, it's easier to just post unfounded accusations on Slashdot behind a false name, isn't it?
RMN
~~~
If I interview 20 people and 6 of them agree with me and I only use those 6 to support my point of view even though 14 disagreed then did I represent "fact"?
Yes. Documentaries are not statistics and are not reporting. A documentary is simply a movie based on real people and real events, period. Documentarists have always presented their point of view - in fact, most people agree that that's preciely the point of documentaries (Moore actually got the highest american award for best documentary, remember?).
Unfortunately, some people (like you) think that the only people allowed to express their point of view are the ones they agree with. Maybe you should apply for a job with the KGB (or, the way things are going, with the Bush administration).
If you think anything in Fahrenheit 9/11 is a lie, sue Moore and get rich. I'm sure you'll find plenty of people willing to finance your legal expenses (as long as they don't have to go public). For some reason no-one has...
And if you think that "the other side of the story" stands up, go make a documentary showing it (it's not as if you need a huge budget or a big crew). Again, for some reason no-one has...
RMN
~~~
This is expected to be Doohan's last public appearance as he suffers from Parkinson's disease, diabetes and lung fibrosis as well as recently diagnosed Alzheimer's disease.
He kenna tekkit moch longer kaptin!
...was the original Logitech MouseMan+, with the rubber on the sides and the buttons that extended to the edge of the mouse. Looked weird (ugly, even), but it's "the" mouse for (right-handed) people with big hands.
Then they completely screwed it up when they made the optical model, by reducing the size of the buttons (original on the right, optical models on the left and centre).
Currently, the best compromise is probably the "MX" series, also from Logitech (a company I don't like much, but they do manage to get it right now and then), especially the MX-500 and above. The main buttons are very well designed, and the side buttons are reasonable. The scroll wheel and the other buttons are too far back on the mouse, though; to reach them you have to either bend your fingers or move your hand back so it actually rests off the mouse.
And, of course, Logitech's mouse drivers are crap (can't even turn acceleration off completely). Stick to the default OS drivers and you'll be fine.
If they're working on the localised versions, I should bloody well expect that they know the language and culture of the country they're trying to sell to.
Nope, "bitch" in Portuguese is "cadela" (brazilians tend to use "cachorra", but in both cases it means bitch, never girl or woman). The issue is a slightly different one. In Portugal, we use several words for "girl": "menina", "moça", "rapariga", "miúda", etc.
;-)
;-)
One of the most common ones is "rapariga" (feminin of "rapaz", which means "lad"). In Brazil, "rapariga" is usually used to describe a prostitute (although technically it means the same - a young woman).
A more interesting word is "puto". In standard Portuguese, it means "kid" (boy). In brazilian Portuguese it means "male prostitute". So, as you can imagine, when a portuguese writer (Altino Tojal) published a book called "Os putos" ("The kids"), in the 1970s, the brazilians thought Portugal (then a religious dictatorship!) was a really open society...
The feminin ("puta") does mean the same in both dialects.
Another interesting word is "Durex". In Brazil, it means sticky tape. In Portugal everyone knows it as a condom brand (although Control is more popular, and if you've used both, you know why). A couple of years ago, a (female) brazilian friend of mine came to Portugal, and needed some tape. She went to an office supply store and asked for "some Durex". The woman behind the counter looked at her as if she was some sort of nut and told her "well, if you want Durex, go to the chemist's!". She found this rather odd, but did as she was told. She walked into a pharmacy and asked for Durex. The chemist said "what type?", and she said "well, any type will do, I really need it quickly". The chamist said "well, what amount do you want?". Se held her hands about 70 cm apart and said "well, a piece about this big".
True story.
RMN
~~~
I can't help but be reminded of the gully dwarves from Dragonlance when reading this.
Never mind the dwarves; much better are the frogs in Pratchett's Bromeliad Trilogy (Truckers, Diggers and Wings). They're binary; they can only count up to one. So when one of the frogs comes out of its flower and sees all the other flowers, each with one frog, it counts them: One, plus... one, plus one, plus one, plus one, plus one, plus one... which adds up to... er... one.
Now, if only they managed to work together...
I expect you mean a silence / tone generator for video. If so, I have a couple, too (work in post-production).
There are also sound systems designed to reduce noise (ex., noise cancelling headphones or speakers), but they're "anti-noise" generators, not silence generators (and only work for specific positions, with limited efficiency).
How about writing an e-mail to the article's author, explaining his mistake? I just did that, and in 5 minutes he corrected the article. It now says:
"Brought to the John St. Pumping Station, the lake water is used to cool down other water that will then be used to lower the temperature in downtown buildings."
There. I would probably have mentioned something about "heat exchange", but the current version is not too scary for Joe Below Average and is technically correct.
RMN
~~~
I actually got a darkness pump, but it was so noisy I had to buy a silence generator.
RMN
~~~
They will "extract the coldness" of the water? I think Enwave is in the frontline for the next Nobel prize...
So, does he actually pork her dad? I don't remember NLEV having gay scenes. I must have seen a censored version.