Slashdot Log In
Moore Approves Fahrenheit 9/11 Downloads
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Sun Jul 04, 2004 09:59 AM
from the opening-a-can-of-worms dept.
from the opening-a-can-of-worms dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Moore Approves Fahrenheit 9/11 Downloads
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 1417 comments
(Spill at 50!) | Index Only
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
|
2
(1)
|
2
Not surprising... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Not surprising... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Not surprising... (Score:4, Informative)
It's [66.90.75.92] marked as "Cam" on suprnova even though the description says "Screener on DVD". Since it's not on vcdquality, I'm not going to 'risk it'. mis-labeled downloads are all too common. I'll wait for a proper release.
CAM quality, or higher -- depends on the intent? (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://www.memerocket.com/)
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.
Re:CAM quality, or higher -- depends on the intent (Score:5, Informative)
[1] An interview with an Iraqi woman where the subtitles are off the bottom of the screen.
Re:CAM quality, or higher -- depends on the intent (Score:5, Informative)
Rar's ISO's is pretty standard... (Score:5, Informative)
(http://ottodestruct.com/)
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.
Re:Rar's ISO's is pretty standard... (Score:4, Interesting)
(http://www.troz.com/)
- saturate bandwidth on the receiving sides
Actually, it tends to saturate bandwidth on all sides and right down the middle, too- Up until now, it's just people trading files because they like trading files fast.
It's a pissing a contest... who can transfer the file the fastest. They don't care what they are moving or who they may be hurting in the process. I sat and watched these idiots once... a dozen "people" all pushing the same file(s) to the same server; the first one to get the entire file there "wins". This is both stupid and wasteful.- Often it'll hit newsgroups before it gets made into a torrent somewhere
For some things, yes. But for more popular items, a torrent will ususally be available before it appears in part or whole on USENET. (I know, because I watch... and, sadly, usenet is faster than downloading via bittorrent. esp. from such places as suprnova)Re:Rar's ISO's is pretty standard... (Score:5, Insightful)
VCD/SVCD/??VCD all suck and should be consigned to history along with VHS and audio cassette tapes.
Here is a public service announcement:
Attention warez scene d00dz! Here are the correct encoding setting for movies and TV shows.
XVid at 900-1300Kbps 720x480 (do not scale it down! for god's sake. why?)(actually, the height depends on the specific widescreen format used...it's often 330-340 pixels) Audio should be 5 channel AC3 or vbr stereo mp3.
p.s. Do not under any circumstances trade-off encode quality to fit a file on a CD! If your hdd is too small, buy a freaking DVD burner for christ sake. they're only $100 CDN.
thank you. that is all.
Re:CAM quality, or higher -- depends on the intent (Score:5, Informative)
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. [cnn.com]
Re:CAM quality, or higher -- depends on the intent (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:Not surprising... (Score:5, Informative)
http://66.90.75.92/suprnova//torrents/2042/Fahren
http://66.90.75.92/suprnova//torrents/2031/Fahren
http://66.90.75.92/suprnova//torrents/2046/Fahren
http://66.90.75.92/suprnova//torrents/1888/fahren
Sorry, Suprnova.org.
Re:Not surprising... (Score:5, Informative)
2 is the same cam except ready to be ripped onto a DVD.
5 is the trailer only.
Re:Not surprising... (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.internetgenealogy.com/)
If you're going to advocate downloading a movie, at least have a decent telesync online first!
Re:Not surprising... (Score:4, Interesting)
In the process to defend them they contradict themselves so badly!
An example was an article in a local newspaper on how Michael Moore is just another capitalist and while people watch his documentary he is making a fortune and blah blah blah...
Since when capitalism became such a bad thing?
Fox news, ABC, CNN etc etc etc are charitable institutions?
Why is it so hard to accept Michael Moore's news while "Live on CNN" is welcomed with a gaping mouth?
I guess I know now! Interesting, very interesting!
Re:Not surprising... (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.fufme.com/)
There are lots of liberal capitalists. We think that making money is fine as long as you're not destroying people's lives and ruining the environment in the process.
-B
Re:Not surprising... (Score:5, Interesting)
(Last Journal: Wednesday May 09 2007, @08:30AM)
Re:Not surprising... (Score:4, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Thursday November 11 2004, @05:39AM)
Re:Let's call Leftism for what it is (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://www.fufme.com/)
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
Rent it? Not at Blockbuster... (Score:4, Interesting)
(http://slashdot.org/)
Re:Let's call Leftism for what it is (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:Not surprising... (Score:5, Informative)
Before Bowling for Columbine he might not have. Moore agreed to speak for an hour at Hendrix College (where I attend), booked eighteen months in advance for $50,000 plus expenses. A few months after Bowling for Columbine hit theaters, he changed his price to $120,000 for that same hour of whatever he wanted to talk about. Needless to say, Hendrix's strongly liberal-minded campus and its conservative surrounding cities did not get to see him that year.
I know this because I did bitch work for one of the guys who booked the college's special events. It's also worth noting that Hendrix never charges admission for any of its events, though students do get priority.
Re:Not surprising... (Score:5, Insightful)
1) Income
2) Moderation
If I'm a busy person and have only a limited number of time to spend visiting special events, I'll set the price at the point where the demand (for that price point) will not exceed the time I have available for that activity.
This is similar to computer geeks charging people to go fix their computers once they have a real job. It's not to make more money, it's so you don't spend every single hour of your free time fixing other people's computer, and only the people that REALLY needs your help will take your time.
If Michael Moore only charged 1000$ to go and do those events, he would be booked every single day out of the year, and that would keep him from doing what he really wants to do.
i'm lovin' it (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://www.derbaum.com/ | Last Journal: Thursday August 07 2003, @04:36AM)
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
Re:Not surprising... (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://moreminimal.com/ | Last Journal: Saturday March 15 2003, @06:24PM)
There, there mon ami. We're not all Republicans.
Without France, there would be no United States. And vice-versa. American-French relations will survive the little man from Crawford.
Re:French Bashing (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://snogglethorpe.googlepages.com/home)
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".
Without France, the US might never have existed. (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://rhadmin.org/)
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.
Re:Without France, the US might never have existed (Score:4, Interesting)
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 [theotherside.co.uk]
Re:oil-frenzied cronies & France (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://hibernia.jakma.org/~paul | Last Journal: Tuesday March 11 2003, @09:31PM)
http://www.payk.net/mailingLists/iran-news/html
The Mujahideen (NB: there are a variety of english spellings for the arabic word, as with most arabic words.) btw does not equal the taliban. See the wikipedia entry for Mujahideen [wikipedia.org]. It's a general word. In the afghani case, the taliban were but one faction of the collective resistance movement known as the mujahideen. After the war with the Russians, there was civil war between the Taliban and the other factions, the taliban gaining control of most, but not all, of Afghanistan.
As for motives. Let's be honest, every major power which takes an interest in the middle-east does so because of oil. Additionally, the US has a strong political affiliation with Israel, and has long been very involved in assuring Israeli security. The current administration in particular is quite interested in Israel. See Project for a New American Century (PNAC) [newamericancentury.org], there are papers there dating to before the present administration gained power making the case for taking out Iraq, reasoned by way of taking out a potential threat of WMD proliferation and stabilising the middle-east and gaining security for Israel. So taking out Iraq is something the the people behind the Bush administration have had as a goal since long before 20010911.
1. Elf, Total and the belgian PetroFina have all since merged together into TotalFinaElf. Total bought Petrofina at some point and then TotalFina merged with Elf in 2000.
Re:Ahistorical and ungratefull (Score:4, Insightful)
A nation is composed of a multitude of people. They aren't all the same. One problem that France had in WWII is that their brave defense in WWI had essentially cost them a generation of young men. When WWII came, they were thus unprepared. They could have done better with what they had, but the Germans surprised everyone at the time with their approach, so it's really unfair to blame the French for being the first to learn the new tactics the hard way.
I may praise Lafayette for his support of the proto-US, but I won't praise Louis...for him it was pure power politics. And it might as easily have favored our opponents (as it did during the "French and Indian war").
Re:Ahistorical and ungratefull (Score:5, Informative)
(http://slashdot.org/)
The French were using tanks in an infantry support roll. The total number of French tanks was about equal to the number of German tanks, but spread across the entire defensive line in groups of one or two per mile. The Germans concentrated their entire tank force into one area and smashed through. Once the line was broken, they were able to attack the rest of the line from the rear.
Or, in terms better understood by the Slashdot community, the French bunker line was 0\/\/n3z by a Zerg rush early in the game.
Re:Torrent (Score:5, Informative)
(http://www.carotids.com/)
My favorite is Azureus [sourceforge.net] although it uses java and is a resource hog.
Original client--no bells or whistles [bitconjurer.org]
Experimental client with some speed controls [kefro.st]
Use BitTornado not Eike Frost's (Score:4, Informative)
(http://myatomic.com/ | Last Journal: Sunday November 19 2006, @12:31AM)
The bittorrent client available at ei.kefro.st is banned on many trackers because it's over a year outdated. Use BitTornado [bittornado.com] instead.
Re:Not a documentary (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.gregchant.com/)
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.
Re:Not a documentary (Score:5, Insightful)
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 [reference.com], 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?
Re:Not a documentary (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://www.nephandus.com/ | Last Journal: Saturday May 08 2004, @07:19PM)
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.
Re:Non, merci (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://www.fufme.com/)
"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
Re:Not surprising... (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://home.zonnet.nl/hardwareogg/)
Extreme left?
You sure have a knack for exaggeration. I have yet to see either of those two people promote forced collectivisation, the compulsory aquisition of land by the state or an equilisation of wages for everyone.
And a note for future reference: criticising one's government does not make one "anti-" their country. Government requires criticism. If it doesn't get it, it runs unchecked which leads to diminishing democracy. Bearing this in mind, I would argue that Michael Moore is possibily the most patriotic American there is at this present time.
Re:I agree Patriotic like Petain and Quisling (Score:5, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Monday February 13 2006, @07:11PM)
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.
Re:Stop pinning this on Bush. (Score:4, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Monday July 05 2004, @12:52PM)
The point is, it was stupid to sit there for 7 minutes after the second plane hit, ANY way you look at it.
Re:I agree Patriotic like Petain and Quisling (Score:4, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Friday October 01 2004, @08:18AM)
Re:I agree Patriotic like Petain and Quisling (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:I agree Patriotic like Petain and Quisling (Score:4, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Friday October 01 2004, @08:18AM)
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.
Take it up with Teddy (Score:5, Insightful)
- 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
Re:Not a documentary (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Not a documentary (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.fufme.com/)
-B
Re:Not a documentary (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not a documentary (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://www.milewski.org/)
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.
Re:NOT a documentary (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Makes sense. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Makes sense. (Score:4, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Wednesday March 05 2003, @05:56PM)
Re:Makes sense. (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://en.wikipedia....h_invasion_of_Iberia)
Moore is smart enough to realize that he can't prevent people from downloading his movie, and bitching and moaning about it would make him look like a hypocrite. Instead, he states that he doesn't mind letting people do the same thing that they would do regardless, and in the process improves his public image tremendously.
If Moore is serious about getting the message out, he should put his money where his mouth is and release a DVD rip on the P2P networks.
Re:Makes sense. (Score:4, Informative)
(http://www.linuxlabs.com)
Just because he has a message doesn't preclude him from wanting to make a buck.
Especially since if he doesn't, it'll become even harder for him to get a film out.
In addition, it's one thing for him to say he doesn't mind the 'pirates' and for Lions Gate to tacitly agree, but if he actually feeds the P2P network himself, he'll lose an important bargaining chip for when he wants to get his next movie out.
Re:Serious? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Serious? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Distributors are looking into legal action. (Score:4, Informative)
(http://wescnet.cjb.net/ | Last Journal: Monday February 02 2004, @04:16PM)
It's the distributors' movie, And they don't want it downloaded [p2pnet.net].
because he's got control of his movie? (Score:3, Insightful)
(http://www.angelfire.com/electronic2/mrcoffee)
Post your Torrent Links, folks! (Score:3, Interesting)
(http://www.dragonmagic.net/)
Nothing says "I'm trading this" like a
Re:Post your Torrent Links, folks! (Score:4, Informative)
F911 (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://put-your-mone...r-mouth-is.com/blog/ | Last Journal: Monday January 29 2007, @02:44PM)
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 movie is factual (Score:5, Informative)
By the numbers. (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:The movie is factual (Score:4, Insightful)
The implication becomes stronger when Moore also presents the history of the gas pipeline prior to the invasion, which includes the Bush family, the officer who's name was blacked out by the White House when it released Bush's military records simply because he was Bush's business partner in oil, and the Saudis, and that the former Unocal adviser is now the president of Afghanistan. In a business sense, it's simply one hand helping the other, something most people can understand. In a humanitarian sense ( a dirty word to conservatives ) it's a disaster. Families have died due to these business dealings. When it happens on your block, you expect the criminals to be prosecuted. When it happens half a world away, its too abstract to accept, and that gives the neo-conservatives power over the rest of us.
An opposite opinion on the implications would sound rather ludricrous as they would claim these were all "coincidences". However, still expect a lot of handwaving, and misdirection.
= 9J =
One can only think (Score:5, Insightful)
It's still illegal, dude (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:It's still illegal, dude (Score:4, Informative)
Re:"Think for yourself" (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Don't make expensive movies that suck. (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.lazylightning.org/)
"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.
Another reason people download... (Score:4, Interesting)
(http://sbutler.typepad.com/)
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.
well in that case: (Score:4, Informative)
Have fun (Score:4, Informative)
Interesting. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Interesting. (Score:5, Interesting)
It's all about money (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://gustgr.freeshell.org/ | Last Journal: Saturday October 06, @04:18AM)
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.
Yes, its ILLEGAL (Score:3, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Tuesday September 14 2004, @08:18PM)
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.
Re:Yes, its ILLEGAL (Score:4, Insightful)
Not all pirates are assholes... (Score:5, Interesting)
"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.
what is the story? (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Fahrenheit 9/11 director backs illegal not-for-pro (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Umm, stealing HOW? (Score:3, Interesting)
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?
so-called deceits just spin (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:so-called deceits just spin (Score:4, Funny)
(http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/corner.asp)
In such a case, the President surely would have played a role. Later, though. New York has a mayor, and a state governor whose job is to respond immediately to tragic disasters like crashed planes. It became a matter of imminent Federal concern when it was no longer an isolated event. And the President responded appropriately.
Re:Moore and the truth (Score:5, Insightful)
He also says on the Afghan pipeline-issue:
After Afghanistan was liberated from the Taliban, the new Afghanistan government did sign a plan to build an oil pipeline. Indeed, any Afghani government (Taliban or otherwise) would rationally seek the revenue that could be gained from a pipeline. But the new pipeline (which has not yet been built) has nothing to do with Unocal.
In that whole 'deceit' section he does NOT mention the Afghani president Hamid Karzai. Who is Hamid Karzai? Presdeint of Afghanistan! And what past does Hamid Karzai have? He used to work for Unical! Michael Moore says this in his movie, and this is a reversed situation where Kopel is being a hypocrite because he leaves this information out!
Stan's mom and I agree (Score:5, Funny)
(http://www.theschmoejoes.com/ | Last Journal: Saturday June 19 2004, @02:56PM)
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...
Re:Inaccuracies In Farenheit 9/11 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Inaccuracies In Farenheit 9/11 (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://www.thelifeboat.net/)
Re:Inaccuracies In Farenheit 9/11 (Score:4, Interesting)
(http://threeseas.net/ | Last Journal: Friday January 18 2002, @01:44PM)
But for the sane, what it comes down to is that the level or questioning going on regarding the current administration is relevant.
That is, we can certainly do much better than to have an administration of such questionable intent.
No one says that. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Good answer. (Score:4, Insightful)
Does Moore Own It? (Score:3, Insightful)
(http://www.wilcoxon.org/~sewilco | Last Journal: Friday October 19, @12:46AM)
Moore's next film (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://8ln.org/ | Last Journal: Monday March 24 2003, @03:37AM)
Simple logic (Score:4, Interesting)
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
Re:THIS IS NOT A DOCUMENTARY! (Score:4, Informative)
(http://www.haxors.com/)
Nobody said it is...
Re:THIS IS NOT A DOCUMENTARY! (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://homepage.mac.com/masonmcd/)
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
Is it really Michael Moore's place to "approve". (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://slashdot.org/ | Last Journal: Friday November 18 2005, @06:15PM)
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.
Not even Mel Gibson did this (Score:5, Interesting)
Top 10 GW complaints about F911 (Score:5, Funny)
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
What is Michael Moore's True Motive? (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://www.henrygaboyan.com/)
Analysis of how F911's critics "expose lies" (Score:5, Interesting)
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:
Re:the Clinton Chronicles (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Anti-Moore web sites rush to revise themselves (Score:5, Insightful)
Not that they didn't already, but now it will be more obvious.
Sure, Moore supports it (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Fahrenheit 9/11 on suprnova.org (Score:5, Informative)
(http://trolltalk.com/ | Last Journal: Saturday November 24, @08:16AM)
The ip may change, so YMMV
Re:i saw it... (Score:3, Insightful)
(http://www.theschmoejoes.com/ | Last Journal: Saturday June 19 2004, @02:56PM)
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.
Re:And the truth doesn't matter in the process!!! (Score:5, Informative)
(http://neema.redhive.com)
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.
Re:The lies of Michael Moore (Score:3, Interesting)
(http://slashdot.org/)
SHOVELING COAL FOR SATAN: Christopher Hitchens collects check from Microsoft, calls Moore a coward [nypress.com]
read that article, please.