I was trying to get my son to go see it, since he doesn’t care for Bush, but I told him it wasn’t “funny” like most of his childrens movies.
He last saw Garfield and would prefer a large furry overweight character who eats a lot and is funny. hmmmmmm…wait a miute… 
I did not say anything of the kind (I suggest you avoid false quotes), but rather suggested that citing a protest demonstration by a handful of unaffiliated unknowns does not make an “anti-defamation group”, much less “groups”.
You’ve given your single “cite” which is inadequate and asked us to trust your memories of a supposed big-time campaign to suppress distribution of the “Passion” movie. Believe that if you want, but it looks a lot more like Dewey’s own urban legend.
I never implied you said anything like that. The quotes were not false quotes; they were both unattributed and clearly prospective in nature. I was predicting the course of the discussion. Any reader with a reasonable grasp of English would not be confused.
And that is my experience with these types of things: consistent denials of a cite’s adequacy for one reason or another, such that the person advancing the point can’t win. Sorry, but I’m not willing to bolt myself in front of Google for an extended period of time just to win a small-time pissing contest on a side issue only tangentially related to the OP.
I’ve provided a cite, the adequacy of which is up to the individual reader to decide. I don’t think I ever characterized a campaign as “big time;” rather, I just said some groups sought to prevent distribution. And yeah, I’ve proffered my own memory of what I’ve seen and heard as evidence. You can discount that if you wish, but it is a perfectly reasonable source of evidence – hell, our court system is built on such testimony.
So, like I said, disbelieve me if you wish; that’s your perogative. On this point, we’ll just have to disagree and allow the individual reader to make up his own mind.
So you have no counter to the points I’ve raised, are unwilling or unable to find evidence to support your position, and have fallen back on clairvoyance.
What a cop-out.
Yes, I think people can draw their own conclusions.
I did provide evidence. That you are not persuaded by it does not mean that evidence was not given; I’m sure other readers will find it satisfactory while others will share your view. I’m unwilling to devote additional energies to the project, yes, but let’s not pretend I didn’t provide a proper cite supporting my position when asked, or that eyewitness testimony is somehow not-evidence.
I’m not sure what you mean whey you say I’ve fallen back on “clairvoyance,” unless by “clairvoyance” you mean “prediction based upon past experience.” Which, if true, makes me wonder how you lead a clairvoyance-free life. Don’t you ever, say, avoid certain intersections at certain times of the day because past experience has taught you that the traffic there is heavy at those particular times?
Translation: I couldn’t find anything better than the crappy cite I already provided.
“Eyewitness”? That’s a new one. Eyewitness to what?? Is this something you think you saw on “Eyewitness News”, but, um, forgot the details?
That’s all very nifty, but what in the name of God’s Throbbing Prostate does it have to do with debate?
Having nothing of substance to support your claims and as a result, falling back on feeble jibes to respond to what you think I might say in the future is absolutely pitiful.
Experience has taught me that when people start descending to nonsense like this in GD, nothing more of interest can ensue.
When come back, bring facts.
My take is that it’s perfectly OK for activist groups to try to persuade individual theater owners to not show a partiular film, but I have a bit of a problem when it’s large distribution companies. Should one person be able to decide what millions of people can see or hear? I recall during Senate hearings John McCain took the head of Clear Channel to task for trying to boot the Dixie Chicks off the air at the thousands of radio stations they controlled, thus seeking to use their power to “restrain their trade”.
There comes a point where a company becomes less like an individual and more like a government, and we need to be concerned about that.
The answer is no.
Will they do it anyway?
The answer is yes.
Will it result in higher box office numbers than if they’d stayed home and said nothing?
THAT is the real question.
Okay. Glad to hear you’re not addressing the specific situation laid out here for discussion, but rather the larger picture. Would’ve been nice to know that when you made your post though. Perhaps you’d be so kind as to make a proper distinction for us in the future. Might save all kinds of misunderstandings if you’d say what you mean, instead of letting us guess.
You’re pullin’ my fucking leg, right? A simple letter writing campaign is tantamount to barricading the doors of the theater? One, is an illegal act on private property attempting to curtail free speech and depriving the property owner of enjoying his rights of ownership. The other is a peaceable means of persuasion that in no way violates the law and does not co-opt property, private or public, for one’s own use thereby preventing others full enjoyment of it. No one is coercing anyone. Ya really wanna see the film and think you’re in danger of the theater owners deciding against making it available to you, you could, say, write 'em a letter, or something. Maybe ask all your like-minded friends to do it, too.
Despite your protestations to the contrary, you are an enemy of free speech. Not to mention an enemy of private property rights. You and a whole bunch of other people here.
Huh? I think this response should be directed at somebody else. I have not, in this thread, or in any serious discussion here, bashed the French. Please do me the favor of correcting your mistaken attribution. Thank you.
Dully noted. The poster in question was Dr. Deth and not our beloved house curmudgeon, Uncle Beer. Mea fuckup
I go now to the river, there to perform the Ancient Tasmanian Ritual of Self-Abasement, accompanied by a Chorus of Bitter Virgins, intoning dirges of Woe and Humiliation.
The Lefties need to remember that they did in fact succeed in getting Dr. Laura’s television show taken off the air, as is detailed at this website:
http://www.stopdrlaura.com/home.htm
Apparently suppressing the free flow of ideas is all right with our progressive intelligentsia when it comes to certain kinds of ideas …
Like all of my lefty brethren, I am utterly bereft that we have failed to silence that archenemy of our cause…what was that name again? Dr. Larry? Laura!
Oh. Yeah, really torn up about that.
If it’s a letter-writing campaign to block distribution, yes. It’s not the act itself, it’s the motivation behind the act – and in this case, the motivation is to make it more difficult for people who want to see the movie to actually do so.
And this isn’t entirely the harmless little letter-writing campaign you’re trying to spin it as:
Sorry, wrong. The MoveAmericaForward lobbying group is trying to coerce the theater owners not to show the film. Seems like they’re having some success.
Sure. Still doesn’t change the fact that the anti-Moore groups are actively trying to prevent people from seeing it.
I’m in favor of letting anyone who wants to see the film to go ahead and see it. You’re supporting a PAC that wants to prevent people from seeing it, by cutting it off at the source. And you call me the enemy of free speech? :rolleyes: I’d comment further, but this isn’t the appropriate forum for it.
I’d just rather not tilt at windmills. I don’t think you’d accept anything that wasn’t from Abe Foxman’s lips.
If you think my cite was “crappy,” well, again, that’s your prerogative. But it supported my statement and it was from a reputable source. The relative weight ascribed to it will vary from reader to reader, but it is fallacious to pretend I didn’t provide support for my statement.
Now you’re just being childish. I was clearly referring to my own direct observation of things on television and radio back when this controversy was “hot.” And it remains that testimony from firsthand observation is a valid form of evidence.
I thought it was quite obvious: decisions made on predicted outcomes based on past experience do not qualify as recourse to “clairvoyance.”
Your post, concerned as it is with seizing on the word “eyewitness” rather than the clear context of the sentence, has done nothing to suggest my prediction would be wrong. You are a pedant who will seize on any meaningless little thing in response to whatever cites I post.
Thank you. But is that really supposed to be “dully,” because you’re so enamored of your own wit, or did you misstype “duly?”
Dunno. Short term memory issues.
There might be slight credence to this, except that we’ve never been provided even the barest specifics of what it was you supposedly saw or heard.
So much for Dewey, Eyewitness To History.
Now we have Dewey, Man Of Science. :rolleyes:
Stop posting meaningless little things, and you need not fear anyone will seize on them.
For someone who supposedly couldn’t afford to spend any time Googling up supporting evidence, you’ve sure wasted a lot of it in futile self-justification.
Trust me, pointing out your pedantic nature doesn’t really take that much time.
I didn’t say I thought it was right when the democrats did it. I am against all forms of censorship, aside from which, I don’t seem to recall anyone having said it was ok for the democrats to do it.
UncleBeer, like rjung I find it ironic that you call us ‘enemies of free speech’. Just because a majority or a vocal minority wants something, does not make that right, even in a democracy. Hell, even if we’re ‘wrong’ and it’s morally fine to prevent people from seeing what films they want to, at least we’re arguing on the side of let everyone decide for themself whether they want to see it or not.
The simple fact is, no one from this letter writing campaign is preventing you from seeing this film. These people are attempting to persuade, through wholly legal means protected by the first amendment, that the theater owners shouldn’t show the movie. That you protest these activities, and in rjung’s case even equate them with activities clearly illegal (barricading the theater entrances), and would have them supressed makes you an enemy of free speech. The only entity that can actually prevent you from seeing the movie is the theater owner(s). And he’s well within his private property rights to show whatever films he so chooses; and not show whatever films he so chooses. Moreover, the guy can use whatever means he wishes in making the determination of what movies he’s gonna show. That might be letters written by people who don’t want the movie shown; it might be letters written by people telling him they wanna see it. Hell, the theater owner is even free to not read his damn mail if he wishes. He’s free to consider whoever’s opinion seems to carry the most weight with him. And you and rjung would squelch that. Damned right I’m labeling you an enemy of free speech. You sound like an enemy of private property rights, too.
rjung used the term “coerce” above to describe this letter writing campaign.
It would appear that he has a significantly different dictionary than mine. Or M-W.com. “Coercion” has as a necessary component, the use of force. Coercion also has a certain meaning within the law, namely, again, the use of force. Writing letters just doesn’t meet this criterion and thus is not coercion. Persuade is the word you’re looking for. As in the letter writers are attempting to persuade theater owners that it is not in their best interest (which is most likely the bottom line of the balance sheet, not some political ideal) to run this film. Or influence, or induce. But certainly not coerce.
You, or Moore, got any evidence that this letter came from a member of the MoveAmericaForward, or are you are Moore trying to throw a strawman in there? As deplorable (and criminal) as making a death threat may be, if you cannot link the letter with the MoveAmericaForward campaign, then you are posing a strawman as an objection to the specific activities of this organization.
I’m not supporting anything. Except free speech and private property rights. Things you seem to oppose.
Let’s have it clearly, now; boil this thing down to its essence.
Are you, or are you not, against the right of the theater owners to decide for themselves, within the bounds of any prior contract(s) they had in place with the distributors, which films they wish to show in their own theaters?
Do you believe this letter writing campaign by MoveAmericaForward, as described in that linked new story, to be within the confines of law? Yes, or no.
If you believe the theater owners are free to show whatever films they desire on property they own, may they use whatever resources seem advisable in making that decision? Yes, or no.
Any single negative answer makes you an enemy of free speech. And possibly private property rights, too.