OH here, I’m getting a phone call too:
“What’s that? LIBERTARIAN WAS HIS ORIGINAL USERNAME BUT HE CHANGED IT TO MAKE SOME DRAMATIC POINT AND GAIN ATTENTION? OH, I see.”
Wait, there’s more…
“What’s that? DECEMBER WASN’T EVER LISSENER’S USERNAME? SO IT’S A COMPLETELY INVALID ANALOGY? oh, ok. THanks.”
I have read all your posts, and have yet to see you point out any dishonesty in F911. Make your case and support it with facts; otherwise you are not debating, merely name-calling. Which is all we have come to expect from a Shodan post.
Good Christ, you’re simulposting idiocy. It’s a rare treat to be the sane one in an argument. In 2 threads, no less. The phone call was mine. Try to be more original.
What the fuck is your problem with someone changing a username? Liberal used to be Libertarian. Alert the press! I mean what the he…wait…another call coming in.
ring
duffer: Hello?
SDMB Mod of your choice: Hi duffer, Libertarian is now Liberal.
duffer: why the hell are you telling me?
SDMB Mod of your choice: you’re right! I’ll put it on the boards to let everyone know! Thank you duffer!
duffer: No problem Mod! Happy to help. Just be sure to tell jarbabyj, she tends to get cranky when people make unauthorized changes.
end phone call
Now where was I?
Because he changed the name not because he was feeling frisky, he changed it to try and hide his real political bent. It has nothing to do with going from Sam to Dave because you like the new Van Halen album. He wants us to forget the meltdowns he had during his Libertarian days.
Partially, yes. I’m not saying he shouldn’t make his films, or try to express his opinions in those films - I’m saying that the methods he uses allow the general public, who will never bother to fact-check something they got from their local Blockbuster’s documentary section, to draw extremely distorted conclusions.
That’s dangerous. And fostering ignorance.
I mean, Cripes… look at Dubya’s presidency. Isn’t there enough perfectly-accurate factual information there to make a revealing expose without conjuring half-truths?
But instead, Moore craves those half-truths like sweet, sweet candy.
My viewing of BfC suggests that he wants to be inflammatory and use tabloid-style journalism to increase his DVD sales. So the other half of the complaint against Moore is that he’s playing to that retarded audience.
Quite allright, working here as well.
I think Moore does distort facts more than the average editorialist - at least, those to whom I’ve been exposed. But let me see if I can sum up what you’re saying - the films represent Moore’s attempts to sway someone to his opinion, and should not be used for educational or self-educational purposes. Would that be correct?
In that case, I needn’t ever watch one again. I’m not interested in Moore’s opinion.
jarbabyj, **Libertarian ** has a very . . . flexible . . . relationship with context, i.e, the reality that surrounds or supports–or contradicts–whatever little factoid or opinion he’s trying spin. If the context supports his spin, he snags his teeth on it like a rabid terrier and won’t budge. If the context does not support his spin, he pretends it doesn’t exist.
E.g.: the context of his posting history detracted fatally from the credibility of his continued posting. Change his name, and Voila! no history, no context!
E.g: Michael Moore presents some facts in a method that ruffles Libertarian’s feather boa, so he focuses entirely on the context–Moore’s method–and utterly ignores the substance of the facts.
What I’m saying is that Moore’s films should be taken for what they are, and not for what they’re not. They’re not journalism. If the facts he presents in them are new to you, or eye-opening, then great. If you interpret them the same way Moore does, then great again. If you interpret them differently, greater still; make your own film illustrating your own interpretation.
It’s all an education.
Actually, I am on record explaining why I changed my username. I announced that I would beforehand and explained why as well. I then followed the proper procedures to have it done. As you can see, it met with adminstrative approval. But if you wish to continue pretending you can read minds, carry on. Incidentally, your incessant references to my emotional breakdowns, which appear to have given you much delight, reveal just what a black-hearted jackass you really are.
I don’t mean to suggest that they’re unadulteratedly factual; just that they contain facts. He shares his interpretations of those facts with us. A journalist strives to divorce his interpretation from the presentation of the facts; an editorialist includes his interpretation in the the presentation of facts.
Just when I thought you couldn’t be more hopelessly stupid. All of my posts — all of them — are under my registered username “Liberal”. Your ignorance of how data indices work has betrayed you.
To be fair, if Jack Chick were to release a new documentary tomorrow, and a sizable majority of the people who’ve seen it dismiss it as a Catholic-slamming factually incorrect hatchet job, I’d be very wary about plunking down my money to see it, too.
On the other hand, given that a sizable majority of the people who’ve seen Fahrenheit 9/11 have praised it as a well-crafted factually accurate piece of art, I think it’s a bit disingenious to dismiss it just because it’s by Michael Moore.
Or, in other words, it’s understandable to be suspicious of the movie because Moore produced it; but to pre-emptively refuse to see it – even after prominent conservatives have praised the movie – that’s just being a stubborn-headed mule.
I’m getting a headache banging my skull against the wall so often with your posts. Political bent? Libertarians are often more centrist than Liberals. When Lib went to Lib (figure it out) I thought, "oh shit, I have another Dtc or Reeder here.
(DtC and Reeder, that isn’t a slam on either of you.)
Then I started to realize that just because I don’t agree with some Dopers, (DtC and Reeder this is for you) doesn’t mean I have to take what they say personally or to heart. For the most part it’s opinion and genuine complaints and I take it for what it is. Letters written in sentence and paragraph form saying where they come from on various ideas. I’ll try my best (for the most part) to offer my take on things, but I’ve learned to be more selective in where I drop the bombs.
Liberal, however, seems to have moved more to the center. Though he’s still pretty left of my stances. But, as I’ve said to him in an earlier post, he’s the reason I decided to be more open to opposing views in GD and Pit threads. I don’t have to accept the opposition’s views, but I’m now less likely to drop bombs and run. Hey, it’s a start.
If I could have picked a new name for a fresh start, I may have done so. But the point would have been lost since you have to let people know whom you once were. So trying to hit Lib for a name change is so far off base you may want to rethink your philosophy on the whole matter.
And tell us the truth, does it really matter that much to you?
See? “Considering the entire context and judging for yourself” gets transalted as “reading minds.” Whatever.
He wants you to judge him by his explanation, jar, utterly without context. Just believe what he says, not what he does. And only believe it one paragraph at a time, and please ignore the paragraph that came before it.
The Libertarian to Liberal change?
Two words: Yoko Ono.
No, you misunderstand me, Libertarian. I was talking about your history as it resides in the memory of those Dopers who, due to this memory, are immune to your attempts to rewrite that history. You’re Lyndon LaRouche: wait long enough for a new generation of starry-eyed voters to come along, and then rise out of your coffin again, free from your history of insanity. The name change allows you to accomplish this much more quickly, is all.
Um. Not sure what you mean. Here’s a stab at it:
Yoko Ono, who was once widely reviled, didn’t bother to do anything as silly as change her name. She just lived an exemplary life as an exceptional artist, and as she–and all the rest of us–matured, she took her rightful place as a *grande dame * of the New York art scene.
Illustrating the folly of Libertarian’s name change, and suggesting that in the long term he’ll be judged by his behavior.
Actually, my friend, there was no fresh start. I merely appropriated a name that others had ruined and made into a curse-word so vile that political candidates had begun to disassociate themselves with it — a name that reflects my firm belief in the sanctity of man’s rights, and the dignity of his consent. A libertarian is a classical liberal. There was a time when liberals, like Jefferson and Thoreau, had courage and lived by principle. I do not expect intellectual wimps like Lissener or Jarbaby to know this or even to comprehend it if explained. But for the benefit of you and people like you, here is what liberalism once was: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism
Any new poster would be naturally ignorant of his history, good or bad. Bothering to investigate, they would find all the posts he’d once made as Libertarian still associated with him - as the name on each has been changed to reflect his new name. As I understand the process.
Whatever would bring on that comm…
Ah, shit! I forgot to include elucidator in my last post. :smack:
You were included in spirit. 