# Has Michael Moore fallen off the edge? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [November 8, 2004, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-michael-moore-fallen-off-the-edge/273700 "2004-11-08T19:31:57Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![roger\_thornhill](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d9b06d/32.png) [@roger\_thornhill](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/roger_thornhill)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2004, 3:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-michael-moore-fallen-off-the-edge/273700/121 "2004-11-10T03:43:54Z")
**Starvers** , I note that you cunningly omitted the key definition: 5 a : having an inclination for romance : responsive to the appeal of what is idealized, heroic, or adventurous b : marked by expressions of love or affection c : conducive to or suitable for lovemaking Does this give a new meaning to taking the Fifth? ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2004, 3:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-michael-moore-fallen-off-the-edge/273700/122 "2004-11-10T03:53:12Z")
Hot nardly! To use your vernacular, I prefer taking my fifths to be “quaffed.” 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2004, 3:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-michael-moore-fallen-off-the-edge/273700/123 "2004-11-10T03:58:06Z")
> [@El Cid Viscoso](#): > > You, uh, might have me confused with someone else. Where’d I say that? > [@El Cid Viscoso](#): > > History of using deceptive tactics (including altered images) to further his agenda. CHECK You cited BFC and specifically Parker and Stone to support the above statement. I asked you in what manner did Moore “alter images” of Parker and Stone or use “deceptive tactics” regarding them in the BFC film. By their own admission, Moore used no deception. There are certainly no “altered images.” Hence, your original assertion (that Moore uses “deceptive tactics” and “altered images” in his films) remains unsupported. ---
**Author:** ![El\_Cid\_Viscoso](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/41988e/32.png) [@El\_Cid\_Viscoso](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/El_Cid_Viscoso)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2004, 4:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-michael-moore-fallen-off-the-edge/273700/124 "2004-11-10T04:21:01Z")
I said Michael Moore uses deceptive tactics. Included among his many deceptive tactics is the use of altered images. Many people seem to have thunk the gun/slave/native cartoon in _Bowling for Columbine_ was authored by the good folks who bring you _South Park_. The _South Park_ chums are upset about it. I predict that even you can’t conflate this. But while I’ve got you here, your last post made me find something I’d missed earlier: > [@](#): > > _by Diogenes the Cynic_ > > There’s nothing unethical about it. Plays on other titles are as common as dirt for movies, books, songs, you name it. It’s only a “ripoff” if an individual is trying to claim credit for someone else’s work. Tell me, what would be the reaction of our community, should a passionate, informed, well-spoken new Doper arrive with the name **Diogenes the Nutsack**? Wouldn’t that be considered a rip-off? Wouldn’t that be leeching your notoriety for another’s benefit? Do you think our little learned group would welcome him with open arms? Would we ignore him? _gasp_, might some of us even back him? Or would your friends here (myself included) simply eviscerate the fucker? That said, you go and write a funky novelette, one that sets a standard for prescience in pulp, illuminates the dangers of censorship, _and_ permanently changes the entire Science Fiction genre, then have its title subsumed by a paranoid movement to which you cannot subscribe. That’s a pretty big shitburger for an author to have to eat. Don’t count Michael Moore out, though. I hear rumors he’s filming an election retrospective called _The Illustrated Sham_. While it’ll have fuck-all to do with death stories, Moore will certainly put a tattooed guy on the movie poster… ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2004, 4:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-michael-moore-fallen-off-the-edge/273700/125 "2004-11-10T04:29:24Z")
> [@El Cid Viscoso](#): > > Tell me, what would be the reaction of our community, should a passionate, informed, well-spoken new Doper arrive with the name **Diogenes the Nutsack**? Wouldn’t that be considered a rip-off? Wouldn’t that be leeching your notoriety for another’s benefit? > > Do you think our little learned group would welcome him with open arms? Would we ignore him? _gasp_, might some of us even back him? > > Or would your friends here (myself included) simply eviscerate the fucker? [Oops, don’t look now…](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/member.php) ---
**Author:** ![buns3000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/c89c15/32.png) [@buns3000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/buns3000)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2004, 4:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-michael-moore-fallen-off-the-edge/273700/126 "2004-11-10T04:40:32Z")
> [@Homebrew](#): > > This is a hijack that is more interesting than the OP. Like anything could be more interesting than the gazillionth Mike Moore-bashing thread. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2004, 4:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-michael-moore-fallen-off-the-edge/273700/127 "2004-11-10T04:44:14Z")
> [@El Cid Viscoso](#): > > I said Michael Moore uses deceptive tactics. Included among his many deceptive tactics is the use of altered images. Many people seem to have thunk the gun/slave/native cartoon in _Bowling for Columbine_ was authored by the good folks who bring you _South Park_. The _South Park_ chums are upset about it. I predict that even you can’t conflate this. Moore never claimed that Parker and Stone did the animation and the animators are fully credited at the end of the movie. It’s not his fault if people jump to false conclusions. > [@](#): > > But while I’ve got you here, your last post made me find something I’d missed earlier: > > Tell me, what would be the reaction of our community, should a passionate, informed, well-spoken new Doper arrive with the name **Diogenes the Nutsack**? Wouldn’t that be considered a rip-off? Wouldn’t that be leeching your notoriety for another’s benefit? Not at all. No one would be confused, I wouldn’t care and I didn’t exactly invent this name anyway. > [@](#): > > Do you think our little learned group would welcome him with open arms? Would we ignore him? _gasp_, might some of us even back him? > > Or would your friends here (myself included) simply eviscerate the fucker? Some people might think it was weird. If it was done specifically to mock me as a poster a mod might find it jerkish but it wouldn’t bother me any. People would know the difference. > [@](#): > > That said, you go and write a funky novelette, one that sets a standard for prescience in pulp, illuminates the dangers of censorship, _and_ permanently changes the entire Science Fiction genre, then have its title subsumed by a paranoid movement to which you cannot subscribe. That’s a pretty big shitburger for an author to have to eat. There is no such thing as ownership of a title, and Moore’s movie had fuck all to do with Bradbury’s book. Let’s also remember once again that Bradbury has “ripped off” words from Shakespeare and Walt Whitman for his own titles. > [@](#): > > Don’t count Michael Moore out, though. I hear rumors he’s filming an election retrospective called _The Illustrated Sham_. While it’ll have fuck-all to do with death stories, Moore will certainly put a tattooed guy on the movie poster… And there would be nothing unethical about it if he did. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2004, 5:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-michael-moore-fallen-off-the-edge/273700/128 "2004-11-10T05:33:55Z")
I just wonder, how many folks complaining about “Michael Moore’s deceptive practices” also complained about the Bush Administration’s deceptive tying of Al Qaeda and Iraq? ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2004, 5:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-michael-moore-fallen-off-the-edge/273700/129 "2004-11-10T05:49:49Z")
Well, I can’t speak for all my brethren, but I can regarding myself. The answer would be “not much,” given that I believed all along that a very likely synergy already existed or was very likely to come into existence between Iraq and al-Qaeda. Particularly in light of the fact that Hussein was already harboring well-known terrorists in Baghdad and that he was sponsoring terrorist attacks against Israel, and that he had shown by his own WMD attacks on the Kurds that he had no aversion whatsoever to their use against an enemy, and we were certainly an enemy. al-Qaeda would have been an ideal way for him to strike at his bitter enemy the United States, while still allowing him deniability by placing the blame on his potential willing co-conspirator al-Qaeda. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2004, 8:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-michael-moore-fallen-off-the-edge/273700/130 "2004-11-10T08:11:20Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > What he did was infiltrate by some method that he will not reveal, and then misrepresent himself in order to manipulate the soldiers to say something he could use. It’s not that he investigated objectively and came to conclusions; it’s that he took his conclusions to the task, and formulated what he could use to support his conclusion. He did the very thing you might condemn someone else for doing. Unless it’s John Stossel. Then it’s just good investigative journalism! ---
**Author:** ![roger\_thornhill](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d9b06d/32.png) [@roger\_thornhill](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/roger_thornhill)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2004, 8:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-michael-moore-fallen-off-the-edge/273700/131 "2004-11-10T08:25:04Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > What he did was infiltrate by some method that he will not reveal, and then misrepresent himself in order to manipulate the soldiers to say something he could use. It’s not that he investigated objectively and came to conclusions; it’s that he took his conclusions to the task, and formulated what he could use to support his conclusion. He did the very thing you might condemn someone else for doing. He was actually fighting back ironically against the culture of fear that grips America; a fear that they will be characterised as uncultured loud-mouths abroad; a fear that media people will no longer talk about fellow media people who make a living through simplistic polemic attacks on easy targets, but will instead report positive stories about people who don’t work in the media. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2004, 10:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-michael-moore-fallen-off-the-edge/273700/132 "2004-11-10T10:11:27Z")
> [@caphis](#): > > Then what would be a more appropriate word? Perhaps expropriatory. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2004, 10:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-michael-moore-fallen-off-the-edge/273700/133 "2004-11-10T10:25:11Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > So Parker and Stone admit that Moore did not make any dishonest claims about the animation in the movie. Your point in this regard remains unsupported. “So then later when he did Fahrenheit 911, people were like, well, Michael Moore kind of lies and manipulates to make people think certain things. **We’re, like, personal victims of that** … I mean, he didn’t explicitly say, “Matt and Trey did this animation.” **But he made it look like it.** And that’s what he does in his movies. He uses two images together and **creates meaning where there isn’t one**.” I just wanted, for the record, to juxtapose what you gleaned with they said. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2004, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-michael-moore-fallen-off-the-edge/273700/134 "2004-11-10T14:16:55Z")
What they said was that he never claimed they made the animation. The real animators are fully credited in the film. There was no deception and Parker and Stone have no reason to complain. they were not “victimized” in any way. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2004, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-michael-moore-fallen-off-the-edge/273700/135 "2004-11-10T14:21:55Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > I acquiesce to your proven expertise in these matters. Based on the information you have provided, “stolen” was too strong a term for me to use. Okay, NOW I’ll admit I was wrong. I hope you’ll refrain from using such strong language in the future. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2004, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-michael-moore-fallen-off-the-edge/273700/136 "2004-11-10T17:15:11Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Moore never claimed that Parker and Stone did the animation and the animators are fully credited at the end of the movie. It’s not his fault if people jump to false conclusions. Puh-leeze. Moore implied it without exactly saying it, just as Bush implied that Saddam was tied to 9-11 without exactly saying so. You don’t seem to have any difficulty detecting the sleaziness of the latter. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2004, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-michael-moore-fallen-off-the-edge/273700/137 "2004-11-10T17:41:11Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > Okay, NOW I’ll admit I was wrong. I hope you’ll refrain from using such strong language in the future. > > Daniel And I hope that, in the future, you will research your targets more carefully before accusing them of refusing to admit error. ---
**Author:** ![Blackacre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@Blackacre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blackacre)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2004, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-michael-moore-fallen-off-the-edge/273700/138 "2004-11-10T18:00:03Z")
If he had, we would have felt it. =D Cheers! BA ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2004, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-michael-moore-fallen-off-the-edge/273700/139 "2004-11-10T18:58:00Z")
> [@Steve MB](#): > > Puh-leeze. Moore implied it without exactly saying it, just as Bush implied that Saddam was tied to 9-11 without exactly saying so. You don’t seem to have any difficulty detecting the sleaziness of the latter. Bush did more than imply and I don’t believe that Moore DID imply anything. Anyway, Moore’s “implication” didn’t kill anybody. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2004, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-michael-moore-fallen-off-the-edge/273700/140 "2004-11-10T19:25:44Z")
> [@Starving](#): > > …given that I believed all along that a very likely synergy already existed or was very likely to come into existence between Iraq and al-Qaeda… Based on what? From whence did you derive this conclusion? What facts led you to this opinion? Do you believe that everyone who opposes US policies are in cahoots, that they coordinate their actions and activities? What facts would lead you to such an extraordinary conclusion, given that investigations into the matter show nothing of the sort? > [@](#): > > …al-Qaeda would have been an ideal way for him to strike at his bitter enemy the United States, while still allowing him deniability by placing the blame on his potential willing co-conspirator al-Qaeda… So why didn’t he? There was more than ten years of opportunity, if Saddam was mad enough to pull some shit like this, why didn’t he? Let me propose an opposite scenario: I think, had Saddam caught wind of an al-Queda conspiracy to attack the US, he would have ratted them out. On the QT, of course, wouldn’t do to be caught helping the Great Satan. But he would have known that he would likely be blamed, just as you have here, despite a complete lack of any evidence. (You _do_ realise that, don’t you? That you have no evidence?) A successful al-Q attack on the US held no advantages for Saddam. As history has shown, on the contrary, it held disastrous consequences for him. Further, it diminished his standing in the Arab world by presenting another figure for veneration. Everything to lose, nothing to gain. Your argument is vacuous, unless you have some facts. Have you any? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-michael-moore-fallen-off-the-edge/273700.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-michael-moore-fallen-off-the-edge/273700.md?page=8)