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?
Hot nardly! To use your vernacular, I prefer taking my fifths to be “quaffed.” 
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.
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:
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…
Like anything could be more interesting than the gazillionth Mike Moore-bashing thread.
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.
Not at all. No one would be confused, I wouldn’t care and I didn’t exactly invent this name anyway.
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.
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.
And there would be nothing unethical about it if he did.
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?
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.
Unless it’s John Stossel. Then it’s just good investigative journalism!
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.
Perhaps expropriatory.
“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.
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.
Okay, NOW I’ll admit I was wrong. I hope you’ll refrain from using such strong language in the future.
Daniel
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.
And I hope that, in the future, you will research your targets more carefully before accusing them of refusing to admit error.
If he had, we would have felt it. =D
Cheers!
BA
Bush did more than imply and I don’t believe that Moore DID imply anything.
Anyway, Moore’s “implication” didn’t kill anybody.
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?
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?