posted 06-21-2004 02:59 PM            

In regards to your protest about Michael Moore using Farenheit 9/11 as the title of his film, I suggest you get over it.

posted 06-22-2004 08:22 PM               

Noonday, Texas – William Krar – Noonday to Crawford – 190.56 Miles

Waco, Texas – David Koresch – Noonday to Waco – 166.36

Crawford, Texas – George Bush – Crawford to Waco – 24.20 Miles

An old saying by Nietzsche is that "A casual stroll through the
lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything."

A casual stroll through east Texas is not unlike a jaunt through a
lunatic asylum.

"How fortunate for leaders that men do not think." Adolf Hitler

"It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished
unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets."
Voltaire

"When I despair, I remember that all through history the way of
truth and love has always won. There have been tyrants and murderers
and for a time they seem invincible but in the end, they always
fall - think of it, always." Mohandas Gandhi

"Any government that supports, protects or harbours terrorists is
complicit in the murder of the innocent and equally guilty of
terrorist crimes." George W. Bush

"Political language... is designed to make lies sound truthful and
murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure
wind." George Orwell

Southern Partisan: "Setting the Record Straight"
Attorney general nominee praised white supremacist magazine
"Your magazine also helps set the record straight. You've got a
heritage of doing that, of defending Southern patriots like [Robert
E.] Lee, [Stonewall] Jackson and [Confederate President Jefferson]
Davis. Traditionalists must do more. I've got to do more. We've all
got to stand up and speak in this respect, or else we'll be taught
that these people were giving their lives, subscribing their sacred
fortunes and their honor to some perverted agenda."

--John Ashcroft, Southern Partisan magazine interview (Second
Quarter/1998)

posted 06-23-2004 02:26 PM               

I'm actually Moore... I mean MORE disturbed that Michael Moore's title alludes to one of Bradbury's works. As far as I'm concerned, Moore could well be the best propoganda writer for 1984's ministry of information. Bradbury, on the other-hand, is a writer of integrity, real imagination, and heart.

Are you out of your MIND or just a CIA plant?

Michael Moore is doing the EXACT same thing with facts that Ray Bradbury did with fiction in his book. Not only should RB NOT have a problem with MM's work and re-jiggering of the title, he should be publicly applauding him for the important work he is doing!

Wake up, Dude - the Neo-Nazi's are large and in charge in the White House, with the result being that Amerika has become the police state they so desperately want as part of their "Great Plan" for world domination.

(Couple of examples aside from the Patriot Act: Let's see, the Supreme Court just ruled that it's perfectly okay for the police to ask you for your ID even if you're just walking down a road minding your own business, and the Federal Government just overruled the Washington State government and said that it's okay to have "random searches" of cars on ferryboats. Good-bye Fourth Amendment, it was nice to know ya!)

And how much do you wanna bet some "terrorist act" will occur on the Fourth of July this year that The Illuminati will blame on China or North Korea? Hello WW III, the U.S. and China duke it out until all their resources are expended and then let's all wave and cheer as worldwide martial law is declared by a U.N.-led "peacekeeping army."

In closing and in all fairness, MM does have a way of sometimes being a little too "screechy" but that in no way takes away from the excellent and incredibly important information he's providing to a populace kept too long in the dark by Illuminati-controlled media that would rather show you Paris Hilton taking a dump than pictures of innocent Iraqi and Afghani women and children slaughtered by U.S. cluster bombs as we make their countries "safe for democracy."

posted 06-24-2004 03:41 PM            

2. He didn't use the same title although he could have see 1. He used a reference to the title.

posted 06-24-2004 05:29 PM               

In the media world today, there are no rules. It's a jungle of greed, politcs and literary corruption. Moral arguments are invalid. Absolute truth no longer fashionable. Must you hold to these 'rules' in order to come up with your judgments? How else, otherwise?

posted 06-24-2004 08:05 PM               

You actually got the point:

You don't get it!

posted 06-24-2004 09:43 PM               

You say sycophantic fanboy as if that's a bad thing.

Seriously, why not take some time and browse some of the other threads? Your argument has been brought up, and disposed of, before. But perhaps there's something new you'd like to add.

Best,

posted 06-28-2004 07:12 AM               

Excerpted from Yahoo!news site this morning.

posted 06-28-2004 04:35 PM               

Welcome and thanks for writing. I’d prepared a fuller response but realized you might construe a counter-argument as being intolerant of outside perspective. Instead, let’s allow your post stand and speak for itself. Trust me: it speaks volumes. Though possibly not in the way you intended.

Best,

posted 06-29-2004 12:03 AM            

Or should I call you Pterranitza? Your meritmongering and extravagantly inerudite, purposeless quiritations are by anyone's standards incontrovertible proof that any metagrobolized and infinitely bamblustercated wannabe-Internerd with low self-esteem and disgracefully finite semi-cognitive "ability" can, without resortion to pricelessly moronic non-sequiturs and vomitworthy obiter dictum, "compose" what most would doltishly "observe" as an admittedly ineloquent riposte to a publically embarrassing verbal indignity, ahem, such as we have prsently seen.
Shame that you know nothing, no? Do you follow me? Grow a hippocampus like a big crybaby, and further banish yourself, effortlessly, to blithering obscurity. Are you still with me? Hoorah for parviscient ol' you... the quiveringly mindless lickspigot.

Most sincerely yours,

posted 06-29-2004 01:09 AM               

...intercedes with slings and arrows from places where indigenous whelps and wasps write, where ''what's thats'' to the ''wishy washies'' and ''waste wallowers'' live, some less in wisdom than chance. There, too, wandering whistlers whistling where one never whistles.

Dare be motes of honor found in this formative body ?

Upsettings tailored by Moore produce but a wink in that mountain made by earthquakes and world shakings, lava and spitting flame, and tumbling avalanches of rock and spewings of thunder. Thus born the prose of long ago summers, and far away Mars, and dark dark circuses at night that undrape evil. Have you missed it all by words with temperatures? Look back. Look back, and see the work. It lines up like shining pillars as far as the eyes can see, and further still, where the heart now sees instead.

Mock one so grand who thrills the hearts of the yet to be born, who someday read and wonder and bring in grander futures? Why complain this fahrenheit distaste?
Forgotten his journey for you?

Whimpering simmering sons and friends and foes alike, not another pedestrian like this will pass so soon. When gone, why see how poor, how poor all truly are.
See, instead, how rich now you are indeed!

posted 06-29-2004 02:30 AM               

Again, the idea that if an argument has been disposed of doesn't matter to you is a typical Moore characteristic. You should read the other posts and understand the issues, then find out what Ray really said, THEN make a contribution.

If you don't see the difference between using a phrase or title from a classic that's been in the public domain for hundreds of years, and usurping a living writer's work to promote political propoganda, it is difficult to see a basis of discussion.

It's not a legal issue. It's about class. Something Moore has shown over and over again that he doesn't have.

posted 06-29-2004 09:29 AM               

Sigh.

I think I’m being insulted but I’m not really sure. Here’s something you might not know about people like me: simple and direct works best. Your profile says you’re a writer; I’d be willing to bet you’ve heard that advice from an editor before.

Okay, then. Rather than try to cut through the gobbldegook of your last post, let me visit your first post:

You’ve mistaken counter-arguments for intolerance of outside perspective. There are plenty of examples of outside perspective on this site, yours included.

Doesn’t sound like Moore illegally lifted Bradbury’s title. But then that was the accusation made by Moore’s supporters. When Bradbury says he wants his title and book back, he’s not accusing Moore of illegal action. It’s called a metaphor.

Yes, Bradbury has used lines and titles from other writers. Lines and titles of works in the public domain though I’m fairly confident if those writers were alive today, they’d be proud to have their work associated with Bradbury. I’m not sure the same could be said about Moore’s work. Not yet, at least. (You’re right about one thing: I’m not the authority. By implication, that must mean you know who is. Care to share this person’s name? It wouldn’t be you, would it? Naw. Didn’t think so.)

As you say, history will be the judge of Moore’s work. It’s already judged Bradbury’s work, which will be celebrating its 50th anniversary soon. You’d agree that F-451 is a major literary work, wouldn’t you? I mean, Moore certainly does. That’s why he tried to tie in to the title. I just wonder how Moore’s work will be viewed in 50 years.

To some extent, Moore’s work has already been judged by history: he’s already cultivated quite a reputation for being a manipulator of truth. You might not think so but perhaps Bradbury does and, thus, explains why Bradbury didn’t want to be associated with Moore.

You may assert F-9/11 is a “bona fide” documentary but that would differ from Moore’s own characterization. He said the work should be considered an Op-Ed piece.

Nope. Haven’t seen the movie and won’t. I’ve explained my reasons elsewhere but none of them include “unchecked hostility” and “greenhorn desperation,” whatever that is. A disadvantage, I know. You’ll notice, however, that I’ve limited my comments to what I’ve read about the movie and what others have said about it. I’ve never pretended that was a substitute for viewing the movie. It isn’t.

Now, wipe the foam from your lips, reach for your thesaurus, and dazzle us with a response. I, for one, look forward to it.

Best,

Pete

P.S.

Sorry. The Pterranitza reference flew right by me. If it makes you feel better to call me that, feel free. My screen name’s pterran but my real name’s Pete. Be comfortable, is all I insist.

posted 06-29-2004 01:34 PM               

Man, those are some fancy words you’re using. But you’re right: big words don’t make for an argument. Neither do insults. If you’d care to make a point, preferably one about Bradbury, since this is, after all, a Bradbury site, feel free to do so.

May I make a correction, though? I haven’t quite posted three thousand times. (Yeah, I know. You’re using a rhetorical flourish. Sort of like the big words you like to use. We get it, all right? Sheesh.) According to records, it’s more like 352 since April of 2002. To save you time researching, that’s somewhat below the average for a long time poster on this board. But I will concede that you managed, in three posts, to make yourself look like a bigger fool than than I could’ve in 352. For that kind of efficiency, I commend you.

Best,

posted 06-29-2004 02:12 PM               

Maybe he'll tell us.

Best,

posted 06-29-2004 04:48 PM               

Megadittoes.

Best,