Ahem. BfT’s assertion regarding South Park seems to be based on two premises - One, that the interview with Matt Stone was strategically placed in the film along with the South Park footage to provide a natural lead-in to make people associate South Park and the cartoon - a premise I dispute in the other thread - and the premise that the animation style is deliberately imitative of South Park - a premise I dispute both here and the other thread.
So when someone’s putting forth a conclusion based on evidence, and you refute their evidence, that’s doesn’t put you in opposition to their conclusion?
And for the record, the voices are similarly done. But I don’t think BfT even mentions that. It’s just an observation on my part.
No, I was mentioning the page, not “Citing” the page. Look again.
No, you didn’t. You said it didn’t look like South Park, not that it wasn’t “deliberately imitative” of South Park. Moore could intend to deceive without actually being very good at it, and the animators could deliberately attempt to imitate South Park’s style without being successful. You never disputed the alleged ill intent, just the effectiveness of the result.
I wouldn’t normally want to make a case over something like this, but if I were to hold you to the same standard you’ve held Moore, I’d have to conclude that you’re a sneaky liar who’s trying to trick me. As things are, I believe that your intentions are honorable but that you’re not always all that great at expressing yourself clearly…although it would be nice if you’d just admit it rather than trying to convince me that you’ve already said something you never said.
*Or you could, you know, just say what you mean. Is it really so difficult for you to type the words “I don’t believe Moore was trying to trick people on this point”? You could have saved yourself a lot of trouble by simply saying something like that. Instead you seem to have done everything possible to avoid clearly stating that you don’t think Moore was intentionally being misleading about the creators of the animated sequence. Perhaps it’s too painful for you to openly admit that the man ever failed to be dishonest when he had the chance, but again, you can’t take credit for saying something you never said.
Or you could just be splitting hairs in an attempt to annoy me, but why speculate? While I did not explicitly dispute the “deliberately” part, I did explicitly dispute the “imitative” part. It doesn’t look like South Park. Therefore I do not think it is imitative. That follows. How the devil can anyone not be able to expand that to think “Well, he doesn’t think it’s imitative, so he cannot possibly think it’s deliberately imitative.”?
It’s like if you asked me if something was too yellow, and I said I didn’t think it was yellow at all, and you accused me of dodging the question. “Is it deliberately spicy?” “It’s pretty bland.” “Answer me!” :rolleyes:
But, in fact, I did say it. I don’t feel the need to deconstruct something word by word constantly to take it apart. I point out the parts I have the biggest problem with. I find it ludicrous to compare South Park’s animation to that in BfC, so that’s a big issue.
For the record : if Moore was trying to deceive folks into thinking the cartoon was the product of the South Park team, he did it so incompetently that I can find no implication of such. The only lingering shred of evidence to the contrary is the puzzling fact that clips from South Park appear in BfC at all.
On review, I must withdraw one part of the point - I didn’t end up mentioning the things in the previous thread. (Though I stand by my declaration in this thread.) I had apparently conflated it in my memory with another discussion I had. Doubt creeped into my head, and when I went to check, I’d only posted my conclusion that I wasn’t fooled into thinking that the cartoon was from the SP boys, not the whys.
So, the “whys” appeared for the first time in this thread.
Right, because I’ve had it in for you personally ever since you…uh…never did anything to me.
*No, you didn’t. You didn’t use the word “imitative” at all, so you could hardly explicitly deny that it was imitative.
*No, it doesn’t. If they had tried, and failed, to convincingly mimic South Park’s style, it would still be “something produced as a copy” and thus an imitation.
*No, it would be like if I asked you if, say, Janet Jackson intentionally exposed her breast at the SuperBowl halftime show in order to shock America, and you said “It doesn’t shock me to see a bare breast!” Jolly good for you, but that’s got nothing to do with whether it was intentional or accidental, or what her motivations might have been if it were intentional.
But your original claim wasn’t that you’d repeatedly stated that you disagreed that the cartoon imitated South Park’s style (something that would have been true), you said:
You did not state several times that you disagreed with “Bowling for Truth”'s assertation that Moore was trying to promote the mistaken impression that Matt Stone was responsible for the animated sequence. It never happened. You can dance around it all you like and say that other things you really did say should have indicated that this was your belief, but you said that you had stated it several times, and you did not.
*Okay, now this is beginning to look like an outright lie instead of a failure to communicate well. You did not say " “I don’t believe Moore was trying to trick people on this point” or anything resembling such.
*And you still refuse to say it!
Look, if you don’t really believe that Moore was in no way attempting to be dishonest then you don’t have to pretend that you do. It’s fair enough if you believe that since you have no real way of knowing what Moore’s intent was you shouldn’t speculate, but that most of the evidence doesn’t support “Bowling for Truth”'s claim.
What isn’t fair is to continually claim that you’ve said again and again that you don’t think Moore was being dishonest when in fact you’ve gone to great lengths to avoid saying that. You never said it. I can hardly believe that you could sincerely fail to realize this, since all you need to do is look back over the last page of this thread and read your own words. If you claim that you said something that you know you didn’t say, you’re a liar.
So, are you going to be a liar or not?
*That’s rich. Did you already forget that you were making a diagram of Moore’s sentence further up the page?
I haven’t seen “BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE”, so I cannot comment on it. But Moores earlier pseudo-documentary about GM in Flint MI was a complete pieceof propaganda. Everything in the film was distorted, slanted, and downright innaccurate-the people that he “interviewed” were coached to deliver exactly what Moore wanted.
Soin no sense was this film a documentary…just a propaganda piece for Moore’s eccentric brand of populism. It is entertainment/fiction, and nothing else.
I can understand why Bradbury might be ticked off, but I don’t see that Moore has done anything legally or morally wrong here. Moore didn’t use the same title as Bradbury’s book, just a similar one that references it. Even if the titles were the same it wouldn’t really matter, because US copyright law does not protect titles. Bradbury can’t expect other people to obtain his consent before using the same/similar title as one of his books.
If Bradbury could show that the public would mistake Moore’s film for an adaptation of Fahrenheit 451 and thus make unfair competition for the book or authorized adaptations, then the law would be on his side. But if the two works are obviously distinct, I don’t believe there’s anything he can legally do to make Moore change the name. This would be true even if Moore’s film had more in common with Bradbury’s novel than it does. To take one example, Todd Haynes didn’t need David Bowie’s permission to make a glam rock film (featuring a Bowie-esque character) called Velvet Goldmine, although Bowie could and did deny him the rights to use the song of that name in the film.
Bradbury is no novice, so he must know all of this. Given his age some confusion or crankiness isn’t surprising, but he’s not handling this well or reasonably.
In an interview with NBC’s Matt Lauer, Moore denied that film was political in nature. Rather, says he, it’s about the art, the cinema. And at Cannes he stated, “I did not set out to make a political film. The art of this, the cinema, comes before the politics.” He did not mention at the festival that he had sold the film to Miramax’s Harvey Weinstein, a Democratic Party organizer and fund raiser for John Kerry, nor that he had hired several former Clinton politicos to help market it. But lest you think he likes Democrats…
“If you know anything about me, anybody who’s followed me, I’m the anit-Democrat,” he told Lauer. “I mean I have railed against the Democrats for a long time. They’ve been a weak-kneed, wimpy party that hasn’t stood up to the Republicans. They’ve let the working people down across this country. I railed against Clinton when he was in office. I didn’t vote for him in '96. I didn’t vote for Gore in 2000.”
He went on to tell Lauer that he considers his film to be a personal attack on the Bush family. It sounds like to me that he has four feet, and legs long enough to plant each one on its own base.
Shockingly, some people in this world deliberately seek to annoy others without any prior offense on the part of the annoyee.
To have any belief that something imitates the visual characteristics of something else, it is necessary to belief that the something actually resembles the something else in some way. I obviously do not.
Not quite. The analogy is flawed for two reasons - one, a resemblance between two objects is subjective, not objective. Secondly, it wouldn’t be the answer you claim… it would be as if I said she didn’t bare her breast at all. Which would be a silly answer for an objective matter, but that brings us back to analogy problem one.
I’m reading my statements. I understand the meaning clearly. If you have a problem getting the same meaning out of them, that’s not my problem.
Look, I don’t have enough evidence to believe he did that deliberately. I don’t have enough evidence to believe he didn’t do it deliberately either. My phrasing was precisely chosen to reflect that middle ground. It is a zen state of non-belief. I neither believe he did it deliberately nor that he did not do it deliberately.
I said exactly what I wanted to say, and what I said that I said. There are words in our language that can mean the same or similar things, you know. They’re called synonyms, and when one substitutes them properly, one does what is called ‘paraphrasing’.
Did I diagram his entire frigging movie? No… gee, well, let’s think… why would I do that to one sentence? Oh! Because someone was trying to claim it meant something according to the rules of English that it did not, in fact, mean. So I had to refute that point with the… wait for it… rules of English.
Anyone see Moore on Letterman last night? MAn, he seemed exceptionally nervous or something, like he is awaiting an assasins bullet over this film. It was quite strange.
When asked by Letterman if the film was entirely factual, he offered to debate any right-winger who thinks that there are factual inaccuracies in this film. I’m sure he will get his chance.
If you’re attempting to communicate with others but you’re the only one who can understand your own meaning properly, that’s actually a pretty big problem for you. Of course you know what you really meant, but all the rest of the world has to go on is what you really wrote.
*Taking a neutral position is in many cases the only reasonable thing to do, but it isn’t really disagreeing with the “Bowling for Truth” site, is it?
*When one substitutes them improperly, one does what is called “saying the wrong thing”. Unless one intends to deceive, in which case it’s just “lying”.
“Stated” is not synonymous with “suggested”, and “disagreed” is not synonymous with “I don’t know if it’s true or not”. “Several times” is also not synonymous with “once”. “Once” happens to be the number of times prior to post #132 in this thread that you said the animation style didn’t look like South Park – which you’ve been trying to pass off as a statement of disagreement that Moore wanted people to think it was by the creators of South Park.
*Which is exactly what I’m doing to you. You said in post #132:
What is the “assertation on that score” referred to at the end? Looking at the preceding sentence, it could only be “BfT said Moore was trying to promote [a mistaken impression of Bowling for Columbine]”…not “BfT said that the cartoon’s style mimics that of South Park”. The two assertations are not equivelant and cannot be freely substituted for one another.
If you can show me that you stated even once prior to post #132 in this thread that you disagreed with the assertation that Moore was trying to promote a mistaken impression of Bowling for Columbine, I’ll let the “several times” go as exaggeration or mistaken memory. I’ll admit that I was wrong and apologize.
But if I am wrong here, if I somehow missed the crucial post, it should have been easy enough for you to correct me already. Instead you’ve spent several posts trying to spin one sentence into being a statement of something that it obviously doesn’t say. If you can’t prove me wrong, you could at least admit that you made a mistake in post #132. It’s common enough for people to type the wrong thing, phrase things badly, or to think they’ve already posted something they only thougt about posting or that they said in some other forum. You’ve already admitted to doing the latter in regard to another point, and I’d have no trouble believing you if you said that you now realized you’d done it again.
I’d be quite happy if you would do either of these things, because unlike some, I prefer to believe that people are honestly confused, mistaken, or the victims of misinterpretation more often than they’re truly dishonest. I have no desire to wish to believe that you told me a stupid, transparent lie and then piled lie upon lie on top of it in a pathetic attempt to confuse me. But if you cannot prove me wrong or admit that you were wrong, then you’re a bald-faced liar with no business casting stones at Michael Moore over the “lies” you’ve accused him of telling.
Well, gosh, and since you don’t get it, obviously the rest of the world doesn’t, right? :rolleyes:
I don’t believe what the author of the site clearly does believe. That’s disagreement.
I didn’t substitute anything improperly.
No, I said it before in a previous thread. Which I mentioned.
I insist that the one is dependent on the other. So in some sense, I disagree with the assertion on an even more fundamental level. Not just opposing it’s conclusion, but one of the premises on which it is based. They are not equivalent, that much is true. I couldn’t substitute them the other way, but I can substitute them in the way that I did.
Previous thread on Moore, assertion that the animation style was unline South Park’s, which I continue to insist makes the point. You can continue to disagree on this point, but, fair warning, I’m going to disregard any portions from now on in this thread that insist they aren’t linked, because neither of us is going to change our minds.
Incorrect, thanks for playing. In the logical structure of the site’s assertions (though calling them logical can be quite generous) it puts forth a conclusion based primarily on two pieces of evidence… both of which I disagree with. Therefore, it must follow that I find fault with the conclusion. I could not say that I disagree with the conclusion and expect you then to interpret that I don’t think the animation is imitative of South Park’s … but the other direction is fine. It’s like breaking a table… I could break the big flat surface on top, or I could choose to attack the legs it stands on, which I have done.
