posted 06-29-2004 07:18 PM               

And there's a lot of 'thems' around here.

posted 06-29-2004 07:20 PM            

As for the movie, it's great. It's biased, no doubt. Don't think it isn't. So are Fox News, CNN, CBS News, etc. Horribly biased. And their bias is in the opposite direction, as they've been behind Bush and all the money he’s made them 100%, right from the beginning. These wars have been the most profitable thing that corporate media could ask for. What Moore is doing is showing the other side. I won't even go so far to say he's entirely right, but it's the side no one has been shown. And don't tell me it's un-American to not back your government's actions. I hold that as just about the most American thing about America - the fact that people take action when we don't like what's happening. I'd like to think we couldn't be led into a Holocaust.

Moore is biased and sometimes misleading, but from everything I've seen he doesn't lie. He's got lots of rich enemies that often try to say that, but from all of the research and reading in to these accusations, I've found nothing. And that’s out of all of Moore’s stuff.

posted 06-30-2004 01:38 AM               

How's that for communicating?

My, how you love to hear your own voice. As I know nothing of you, neither do you know anything of me. I wasn't aware it was a contest.

posted 06-30-2004 08:47 AM               

Best,

posted 06-30-2004 09:45 AM               

“Since the book remains in print, and Bradbury has some hope that a new film version will be made in the foreseeable future, he may be concerned that hoopla about Moore's film will harm the market for his book, or for a remake of the movie based on his book,” said Litman, author of “Digital Copyright,” a 2001 book on the effect of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act on consumers.

posted 06-30-2004 10:30 AM               

As to whether Michael Moore should have been more “fair and balanced” in his portrayal of Bush, after years of listening to the complete hogwash that often comes from Bill O’Reilly or Rush Limbaugh it seems a little funny to hear the Right-Wingers talk about accuracy and even-handedness. Sounds more like they are mad that the left is finally using their own tactics against them.

In fact, considering the bomb threats at some theaters showing the movie (and Oklahoma City and numerous family planning clinics), perhaps that’s why they are mad at the terrorists as well.

posted 06-30-2004 11:53 AM               

First, if you want to hear Ray Bradbury speak on his own behalf, go to www.wbur.org, the local NPR news station in Boston. Robin Young interviewed Mr. Bradbury on the "Here and Now" program at noon yesterday, June 29. (You can find it by doing an easy search. Hear and Now links back to this site.)

Second, Mr. Bradbury said his book was primarily about literacy and the dangers of the loss of literacy, particularly the failure of schools to teach literacy at the younger ages. And, I extrapolate from his words although he did not say this outright, the loss to our society when people stop thinking and analysing for themselves.

Third, Mr. Bradbury indicated that Michael Moore's comment "9/11 is the temperature at which freedom burns" is a false analogy. That Michael Moore's movie has nothing to do with the messages Mr. Bradbury felt he was pursing in his book. He obviously feels his message has been hijacked and diluted by Michael Moore's use of the title of Mr. Bradbury's book.

And frankly, I agree with Mr. Bradbury. It's a hollow analogy. It didn't make a lot of sense to me that Michael Moore would name the movie "Fareinheit 9/11" - I don't see any similarity in his railing against the Bush Administration and Mr. Bradbury's warning against the dangers of literacy and becoming too addicted to moving images. (I don't even understand Mr. Moore's movie to really be about free speech, either. It may be free speech for him to create and publish the movie, but that has nothing to do with whether the Bush Administration failed to pay enough attention to terrorists and allowed 9/11 to happen. But I have not seen the movie - I'm only going the information contained in reviews I have read.)

Indeed, I am almost amused by the irony. Mr. Moore made a movie - moving images. There are plenty of moving images in Mr. Bradbury's book and they are clearly the problem in Mr. Bradbury's view. Mr. Bradbury warns against allowing moving images (TV, movies) to take over our lives and dictate our thoughts, instead of pursing literacy and learning on our own.

Images are powerful, and persuasive. But they are also easy. It is easy to sit slackjawed in front of a TV, or a movie, and accept those images as true. (That's why there is such a huge problem with advertising to children.) It is harder to read a news analysis, because to read it, you must attempt to understand it, which requires using your brain.

It seems to me that Michael Moore just thought it would be a catchy name and so he used it. He didn't spend much time thinking about whether the message of his movie really had anything to do with Mr. Bradbury's book. He obviously didn't have the courtesy to call Mr. Bradbury before and discuss it. In fact, he reportedly waited 6 months to return any calls to Mr. Bradbury about the title.

It is my understanding as well that titles are not protected by copyright in the U.S., so it is unlikely that the title alone would be the basis for a legitimate law suit in the U.S. There may be an argument if Michael Moore has done more to "trade off" of the title/concept made famous by Mr. Bradbury (advertising, making it seem like Bradbury approved, etc.) but that seems unlikely.

I don't blame Mr. Bradbury for being annoyed, though. There is no reason to choose "Farenheit 9/11" without specifically intending to reference the famous book - it is a phrase that otherwise means nothing on its own. To me, it just shows me that Mr. Moore was just trying to trade off of Mr. Bradbury's creative work. Mr. Moore could have spent a little more time with his brain cells and come up with his own title.

I have not seen the movie. But I also find it annoying that Mr. Moore would be sanctimonious about his own point of view, and have no problem trading off of someone else. So, I doubt I'll go. I'll stick to getting my news and analysis from the newspapers. And NPR.

posted 06-30-2004 12:38 PM            

Mr.Bradbury is one of my favorite writers, and his work always seemed to me to appeal to open exchange of ideas, and ideals.

I think this whole tempest could have been avoided had Mr Moore's people passed along Mr Bradbury's message sooner.

I for one thought Farheneit 9/11 one of the most important films this year (no desire to see Mel Gibson's snuff film -- having gone to seminary awhile, I have no use that religion should be based on the death of Christ, but on his ideals & love of mankind)..

Now I understnad that their is a conservative filmmaker who is making who is making a film which attacks Michael Moore directly.
That is his right, but I hope he has documentation for his accusations, otherwsie it is slander.

You noted that Mr Moore has not been hit with such a lawsuit because of his film...

That said, I hope next time I post on this site, it will be more to praise the wonderful brillance of Bradbury's writing and storytelling, and to discuss perhaps the film and play adaptations of his works...

posted 06-30-2004 05:52 PM               

Thanks for posting the info on the Bradbury interview. I'm glad to hear Brabdury himself expound a bit on exactly why he didn't want his title hijacked by Moore. I've asked elsewhere about how Moore ties his assertion that if F-9/11 is the temperature at which freedom burns. From what I've read and heard about the movie, it's mainly about how bad/incompetent/overzealous George W. is and not much at all about how our freedoms have been restricted.

Anyone care to enlighten me?

Best,

posted 06-30-2004 06:27 PM            

Amazing. Or did you mistype the last word? I'm asking seriously.

"... there is a tendency of the public to be stupid and lazy. To appeal to the lowest common denominator via demagoguery is cynical and demeans us all. The best path is to appeal to the highest in people and try to get them to stretch themselves. The low path is to assume they are stupid and then cynically and arrogantly use shallow, dishonest tricks to persuade them to one's own perspective through appeals to emotion, anger and prejudice.

"... There is much good in humanity. It is that to which I think we ought to appeal. [Bush?] does not make such an appeal. It is more work to base one's arguments on reason and balanced evidence, but it is worth it. A "victory" won on the basis of demagogery is a shallow and dishonest victory. It is this I oppose in ..." ... Bush?

posted 06-30-2004 08:02 PM            

I don't think anyone has posted this. It needs to be seen. Hardly a conservative by any means Christopher Hitchens has written a scathing, brutal point by point review of Moore's movie at:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/

posted 06-30-2004 08:37 PM               

"Blah, blah, blah, indeed. Funny how you couldn't defend your indefensible asessment that Michael Moore will soon be forgotten, but what the effing hey?"

If I posted it and just don't remember, chalk it up to light-headedness and try to forgive me.

posted 06-30-2004 08:51 PM               

Welcome back! Things have gotten a little more, er, rowdy since the last time you visited.

I'd posted the Hitchens link some time ago but its lost in the bowels of the other threads. Good to have it brought to the forefront again.

Best,

posted 07-01-2004 12:38 AM            

(1) Michael Moore has every legal right to use any title he sees fit for his movie.

(2) Ray Bradbury has every right to object to Michael's use of a similar title to a work of his own.

I wish he hadn't. I wish he wouldn't. I wish he'd take it back.

I have admired Bradbury's work for many years, though not so intensely as some other sci-fi/fantasy authors I could name (I'll mention Philip K. Dick, Ursula LeGuin, and Roger Zelazny, and leave it at that.) I attended one of Ray's book signings a few years back, got his autograph on a few books, and had a brief conversation with him. I had no doubt that I was in the presence of a great author, and a mature intellect whose works have graced this world immensely. Now, listening to the NPR interview (thanks to the person who posted the link,) I also have little doubt that, sadly, his best days are behind him.

One thing a lot of intensely creative types have in common is that at odd moments we can be cranky, rude, petty, resentful, short-sighted, wrong-headed, irrational, and stubborn, all in a few moments or days, and then turn around and, figuratively speaking, overwhelm you with a cascade of amazing flowers.

(Well, okay, Bradbury and Moore certainly can. I don't know if I'm entitled to put myself in their company just yet, or ever... Harlan Ellison is even better than these two at alienating even his best friends with his sudden heedless ferocity, by the way. Lester del Rey was someone I certainly wouldn't have ever wanted to meet in a dark alley and a foul mood.)

Having said that much... Well, for starters, I hate to bust anyone's bubble,but "Fahrenheit 451" is no great literary classic, and it can use all the publicity it can get. If anything, it's one of the worst of Bradbury's works. About 30 years ago, while in high school, I wrote a long thesis on dystopian literature in which I compared Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World" and George Orwell's "1984" with "Fahrenheit 451." I concluded that Bradbury's work was the least prophetic of the three, to which I should add it's the least well-written.

Moore would've done better to call his film something like "Brave New War," but that wouldn't have conveyed the proper tone. As one who has seen "Fahrenheit 9/11," I would have to say that Bradbury's assertion that Moore is making a hollow analogy is, well, just plain wrong. A crucial section of the movie deals with precisely the kind of hideous trampling on freedom of discourse that the USA Patriot Act has come to represent. It may be more Orwellian than Bradburian, but the analogy sticks.

Ray's best works, of those I have read (almost all), are "Illustrated Man," "The Martian Chronicles," and "The October Country." He excels at the short story, with his novels running a distant second to his short stories, and the collections thereof.

Any man who can write anything as good as those works, or even the somewhat puerile "Fahrenheit 451," should know better than to give ammunition to the violent-minded mob of right-wing fanatics who are now attacking Michael Moore. Check out the imdb.com message boards some time if you don't know what I mean. It's getting really ugly, folks.

Michael Moore has made a lot of mistakes, like for instance supporting Ralph Nader (whom I also admire despite some grievous errors) in 2000. However, being on the side of the angels does give Moore a few certain privileges to mess up. Whatever else he may be, he is a teller of uncomfortable truths and a master of righteous polemic.

I really, really, hate to say this-- add about 50 or 60 "really's" to that statement if you wish-- but I am no longer sure Ray Bradbury is on the side of the angels.

I think he should retract or modify his statements about "Fahrenheit 9/11."

posted 07-01-2004 02:22 AM            

And Moore is not using Bradbury's title, nor would he be bound to ask for permission or offer money or other consideration to Bradbury even if he were copying the title exactly.

So I'm not sure what exactly it is that Bradbury is so incensed about. Is it that Moore is loud, sloppy, and will make millions from this movie? (Doubtful about the $ - he said the money is not the issue.) Is it personal politics? Is it being tied now forever to a work that he had no part in?

This WILL get F 451 an even greater audience, possibly millions more. If Ray Bradbury is in a position to say, hey - I don't need any more money, I think that's great. I wish I could say that. But no freshman English student can write a review of the DVD without reading F 451 first.

I am 88% sure that Moore probably read F 451 as a teenager, certainly saw the Truffaut movie (what did Bradbury think of that, I wonder?), and wanted to invoke a dark vision of a society that can actually SELF-censor the printed word and perpetually cower under the constant threat of war (Ashcroft calls it "terror" today).

posted 07-01-2004 02:29 AM            

quote:

---

Hardly a conservative by any means Christopher Hitchens

---

posted 07-01-2004 09:50 AM               

At last! A couple of pro-Moore posts that don’t resort to insults! I commend you. Now, to your points:

1.) Indeed, Michael Moore has every legal right to use Bradbury’s title. That has not been in contention. Yes, Bradbury was displeased that Moore was using his title and had talked about calling in attorneys to settle the matter. Does that mean Bradbury intended to sue for the theft of his title? I’m not so sure. As pointed out in other posts, Moore’s film has now entered the forefront of the American mindset. With the upcoming 50th anniversary of the book and remake of the film, Bradbury has every right to be concerned that Moore might muck up the franchise, as it were. And with Moore’s prior record of distorting the truth, which appears to continue through this movie (No, I haven’t seen it and won’t though I’ve kept up with dialogue from both the left and the right that finds much of what Moore presents to be either untruthful or misleading at best.), Moore is making Bradbury’s point: F-451, no matter your opinion of the book, is “branded,” if you will, in the literary world. (It’s as almost as if it’s been trademarked and, if it had, no one would dispute Bradbury’s right to protect his trademark. Moore admits the title was intended as an homage, so he would have no defense that using the title was protected as a parody or some other commentary on F-451.) Otherwise, why would Moore have considered the title in the first place? So, yes, Bradbury should consider the legal remedies available to him, if any. By the way, this argument was first brought up by the Moore supporters and has hardly been disputed by others on this board. The consensus seems to be that Moore should have had more class before he glommed onto Ray’s title. He didn’t. Bradbury’s angry. Now it’s the Moore supporters who find Bradbury to be in the wrong.

2.) I understand you’d prefer that Bradbury drop the whole affair. I don’t think he should back down. An artist should protect his work, just as Moore is protecting his own. (Though I find some of the tactics he’s using to be ironic.) I don’t want to turn this into a “He started it first” kind of argument but, well, Moore started it. He had the chance to do right and chose not to.

3.) Besides, all of this is a tempest in a teapot. Outside of this board, there’s been very little attention paid to the issue. Sure, there’s been an article or two – much of it replayed by the press – but there are other issues about the film that are grabbing the attention of the press and punditry. Most average Americans have no idea what this fuss is about.

4.) I understood differently about F-451 needing the publicity. I’d thought it was on most school reading lists year after year. Though the general reading public isn’t reading the book, neither are they reading the other classics. (In fact, I’d argue that the only thing keeping the classics alive are the reading requirements of the English and Literature classes of high school and college. The classics say little anymore to the average person.) Unless Oprah chooses the title, it’s been a very long time since a classic novel has made the bestseller list.

5.) I’ve never read Brave New World or 1984 so I can’t comment about them. I do know that Bradbury wrote F-451 not to predict the future but to prevent it. So, you might be right that of the three, F-451 is the least prophetic. I think F-451 has some very good points to make and contains some very good passages. Personally, I think Brabdury’s novels, then his poetry, are his weakest areas but his short stories, and books like Dandelion Wine or The Martian Chronicles, that are really collections of short stories, are his strongest areas. His best work behind him? Maybe so, though his recent story collections still show flashes of brilliance. But I’ll admit, he made his mark in literature with his works from the 40s and 50s. Much the same can be said with any artist that lasts. (Okay, Picasso’s an exception but I don’t like Picasso.)

6.) I don’t excuse what you call the “violent-minded mob of right-wing fanatics now attacking Moore.” I haven’t visited the IMDB board, either. But I have seen what’s happened to this board by the Moore supporters, and have seen other comments on other blogs and read comments by pundits who disagreed with Moore who are now being flamed by hateful e-mails from Moore’s supporters. I won’t take the easy way out and say both sides are to blame. F-9/11 set the tone. No excuse for the right to respond similarly. But I think it pales in comparison to the response on the left. I’ve made the point before, for a group of people who claim to care about the weak and downtrodden, they can sure be mean and nasty. Take a browse through this board and count the times Bradbury’s age and sanity have been disparaged.

7.) “A crucial section of the movie deals with precisely the kind of hideous trampling on freedom of discourse that the USA Patriot Act has come to represent. It may be more Orwellian than Bradburian, but the analogy sticks.” I haven’t seen the movie and won’t but from what I’ve read, little, if anything, has been said about this crucial section you talk about. Would you please elaborate? (Though you’re concession to calling the movie Orwellian sort of makes my point: If Moore has read F-451, he may have missed its most salient points. It sounds like he really intended to say things are more like 1984. He may have gotten the themes of the books mixed up. But I guess 1984 wouldn’t be a very good title, would it? Because people would think the movie was about the book. Hmmm. Hey, wait a minute. Isn’t that what Bradbury’s complaint is about?). (Moore) “wanted to invoke a dark vision of a society that can actually SELF-censor the printed word and perpetually cower under the constant threat of war (Ashcroft calls it "terror" today).” Is that what Moore portrays in the movie? Obviously, since this is a documentary, he’s presented facts to support this assertion. Would you give us some examples?

8.) Hitchens continues to consider himself a leftist. Though I’m a fan and thoroughly enjoyed his review of the movie, all one has to do is read his nasty article about Reagan to be convinced he hasn’t lost touch with his lefty roots.

Thanks for making things interesting.

Best,

posted 07-01-2004 01:03 PM            

But on a moore serious note. I just finishised reading 451. I haven't seen FH 911, but from what I've gathered it's pretty
much just a vehicle to bash Bush. No surprise here since MM admitts he's preaching to the choir. The one thing I am struck by is how much the films methods are totally inconsistent with fostering thought and real debate.

I mean a so called documentary which essentially says, don't worry about the complexity of how thing work, I'll distill it down for you with sound bits and imagery that show how corrupt and bad our govt is, dont bother with reading and analyzing things for yourself, just sit back a watch this movie and then you will know the truth.

It seem so ironic to me that one theme of FH 451 is thought control and here we have MM's movie which essentially uses the guise of a documentary but throws out any objectivity to entertain and persuade.

seems like thought control to me, and the problem is alot of people are going think it's the truth.

posted 07-01-2004 04:28 PM               

If you got caught up in my sweeping generalities, I apologize. I tried to give myself wiggle room.

True, Bradbury did use those words. Unfortunate. But hardly a reason for others to use them.

Thief? Sigh. We've covered the subject of using phrases of dead authors, haven't we?

Best,

posted 07-01-2004 10:39 PM            

My main regret has very little to do with how Bradbury's comments will affect Moore's reputation, or his film. Michael's a big boy and can take care of himself. His film is rapidly becoming a phenomenon in much the same way "Uncle Tom's Cabin" was a unique literary phenomenon in the 1800's. Love it or hate it, you can't really ignore it. (It is worth noting that Stowe and her book were, in their time, lambasted at least as vitriolically as Moore and "F9/11," and that later historians have demonstrated that her key contentions about slavery were right on the money.)

My REAL heartfelt regret is that Bradbury's remarks make me think less highly of Ray Bradbury. I hope I'm not the only person on these boards who's met Ray personally. If you have, you'll know what I mean. Of the authors I've met, perhaps only Frederick Pohl was easier to like and be charmed by, in a face-to-face encounter. He seemed almost a completely different person in the NPR interview. Sad, sad...

I strongly advise seeing "Fahrenheit 9/11" even if you don't think you'll like it. You may be appalled or you may be pleasantly surprised, but you (pterran) strike me as the type of person who is likely to find at least two or three little observations or factoids that might provoke you into altering your point of view, if only by a little bit. At least you would understand what all the fuss is about in a way that not even eloquent MOI can accomplish.

Other recommended viewing: --"Medium Cool (1969)" for a one-of-a-kind take on government manipulation of the media-- actors portraying fictional characters wandering through the real-life Chicago police riot of 1968!

--"Under Fire (1983)" for a thought-provoking examination of the journalistic ethics of fighting fire with fire, when under fire.

Recommended reading:

-- Any of Philip K. Dick's surrealistic dystopias (e.g. "The Man in the High Castle," "Flow My Tears the Policeman Said," "The World Jones Made") for some vivid reworkings of the existentialist versus solipsist, "objective" versus "subjective" dilemmas; questions with a direct bearing on journalism, creativity, and the communication of truth.

--"Brave New World" and "1984," to be sure. Perhaps also "Amusing Ourselves to Death," in which author Neil Postman argues that "Brave New World" is most prophetic in foreseeing a world in which crude government controls a la "1984" and "Fahrenheit 451" are seldom used because they are redundant, unnecessary, and counterproductive. Instead, Huxley foresees a world of "thought control by default" in which intellectual honesty and dissent are simply overwhelmed by a massive bottomless cornucopia of trivial entertainment; a world that more closely resembles the years 1984 to present than anything Bradbury or Orwell ever conjured up... "BNW" is better written, too.

Now, some might say Moore is hypocritical in using the covert-police-state media beast's tactics against itself, and himself embodies the Huxleyan vision, to which I would say, "And? Your point would be...?"

But seriously, the stark reality of those images of maimed and murdered bodies is effective precisely because they are so much more real and truthful than can be uttered in the polite halls of academia, or the polite byways of this particular message board, or the politely untruthful writings of Christopher Hitchens on Slate. Dead children, demolished houses, and bloody amputees do tend to give one a different perspective on things like the current irritations of Ray Bradbury.

I mean, sure, Moore could have shown us a lot of charts and graphs exquisitely detailing where your tax dollars are going; how the whole House of Ibn Saud-Halliburton-Unocal-etc.complex is, indeed, ripping you off so the rich can get richer (as long as they've got the right connections,) and not coincidentally, engaging in a lot of wanton murder along the way.

But then, nobody would go see his movie, would they? Charts and graphs do not a compelling documentary make. You can do that kind of stuff all you want-- PBS does it all the time-- and hardly anybody watches. Not if the latest updates on Michael Jackson are airing at the same time.

I could also point you to some websites that would detail how this war really is, among other things, a war for OIL. I'm not going to do that just now, though. Y'all can do your OWN homework, if you know what I mean.

There's just one thing in pterra's post that really got my goat to some extent:

"...comments by pundits who disagreed with Moore who are now being flamed by hateful e-mails from Moore’s supporters. I won’t take the easy way out and say both sides are to blame. F-9/11 set the tone."

Actually, I'd say the 9/11 attacks themselves pretty much set the tone, wouldn't you? Blaming Moore, who employs legions of fact-checkers, without even mentioning the equally corpulent Rush Limbaugh, who does not, is just plain-- dare I say it-- "should have had more class..." or awareness, or something like that...

But what set the tone for the 9/11 attacks? That is the question Moore BEGINS to examine, and that is why seeing his movie ought to be considered mandatory homework for students of this modern world.

posted 07-01-2004 11:42 PM               

Tell me! :

What in the world is so difficult about making a satire, like '''Fahrenheit 9/11'''?

I think Moore purposely lets people say whatever they think that the picture is:
a documentary,
a cartoon,
whatever.
But it has been delivered as a satirical view of the war.

Anybody have to be told what a satire is?
Not really! But I'll say it anyway: Satires squeeze reality into a bulgy monster that gets across that exact personal view the author wants to make. In this case, the filmmaker.

This is NOT news reporting.

This is something close to black humor. And I hate most black humor... because it isn't humorous. ''Fargo'', the movie, was black humor. I enjoyed it, probably because the acting was so good. There were also really incredible moments in the film.

Say what you want. But the way the country is divided... (and, if you did not know it already, this country has '''ALWAYS''' been divided, one way or another, more or less).

President FDR united the country in WorldWar 2.... but there is always a segment out there wanting to kill whatever President is in office, always a group that hates the movie ''Singing in the Rain'', always a group out there that think the Earth is really flat, always a group out there that never heard much less read the 'The History of Civilzation' by Will Durant, always a group out there that say it's illogical for God to exist, always a group out there that think this country isn't perfect. To THAT group, they got it right.
You got something better? Well, Moore thinks so...

So let Moore have his say.

posted 07-02-2004 01:04 AM               

I'm sure Moore's film has some truths in it, but he attacks issues with such bias, and so arbitrarily selects facts, that the end result -- even if he can state that his factoids are individually true -- leads to false impressions and conclusions and oversimplifications. The claim that the entire middle east war and the terrorist attacks are all caused by greedy American oil money is just very, very simplistic. To blame Bush for 9/11 is a bit silly, since it happened so soon after the election and the planning of this thing has been documented to be in the planning stages for a very long time.

I think satire is great. I get tired of two things on this:

(1) I get tired of people over-characterizing Bradbury's position on this. He simply has NOT turned this into a furor -- this has been Moore's people doing this. Bradbury has answered some interview questions and that is it. He never claimed copyright, never threatened a lawsuit, and never held a press conference to attack Moore. Nor has he (or his fans) swamped opposing web sites to try to trample the opinions of others, the way Moore's fans have.