One of the great things about maintaining a weblog is that over time you tend to collect trolls. This would be a problem- if I actually cared about what the knuckledraggers think of me. The beauty of it all is that I don’t, but I can hold the maroons up for public ridicule when they deserve it. I’d bestow a DUMB@$$ AWARD on this maroon, but I don’t think he deserves that much publicity.
The latest missive comes from a troll who shall (deservedly) remain nameless. Suffice it to say that the following will not be submitted to the Pulitzer Prize committee:
To: yuppieskum@yahoo.com
Subject: Die, you gravy-sucking pig…
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 10:09:23 -0500
So, have you read any of the 89,000 sites listed on Google referring to Michael Moore’s lies in Farenheit 911 or do you still have your head stuck in the sand of that beautiful beach pictured on your website. You don’t want the truth, you want talking points, just like Kerry with his Social Security privatization and draft lies.
Hmm…outside of the improper punctuation, poor grammar, and run-on sentences…well, it still sucks. And the point of this screed would be…? I’m supposed to be convinced/converted/intimidated? You know, if you want to make a point, organize your argument and present it in a coherent fashion (using proper grammar and punctuation wouldn’t hurt, either). If you want to intimdate me, give it up. That would presume that I actually care about your opinion of me. If you simply want me to consider an alternate viewpoint, ask nicely and I may just take it under advisement. Starting from a position of assumed moral and intellectual superiority is a good way to get your @$$ handed to you. Or to simply be ignored, which, frankly, is a more appealing option. Why waste energy on someone with the intellectuality agility of melba toast?
Take it somewhere else if you don’t like my point of view. Pee in my sandbox, and you’ll just end up getting wet and smelling badly…not to mention that you’ll be cleaning sand out of your shorts for weeks….
That sounds suspiciously like my recent troll. Was his name, by chance, Joe Doaks?
Nope...apparently, there's more than one out there. Whodathunkit??
Because I have questioned the familiarity with information critical of Michael Moore here before, I'd just like to make it clear that IT WASN'T ME!
The wingnuts are out in droves this week. I think I sniff a hint of desperation in the air, so be prepared for more trolls.
the intellectual flexibility of melba toast???
Daaaay-um. STOLEN, that one is.
(and the line about gravy sucking pigs is, sigh, familiar. I may know who left that ... um ... territorial marking behind. Curses.)
"the intellectual flexibility of melba toast" ??!!!
Daaaay-um, Northstar. I am so stealing that!
unfortunately I think I recognize the gravy-sucking pig line, too. Curse it.
The wingnuts are out on all fronts. The political testosterone is at high levels, and it's only going to get higher. Whichever side of the spectrum you're on, you're just going to have to get used to it, I guess.
Pretty disgusting. So disgusting that it completely overshadows the one valid point -- that Michael Moore's movie was a pile of steaming pig dung.
That is one man's opinion, Greg. Some of us happen to believe that Moore raised some valid points and asked some good questions. Yes, he was in some places a bit over the top, but disagreeing with him does not make him wrong.
Yes Ladies and Gentlemen, it's the moment you thought would never come! For the very first time on this blog Northstar mentions that F-911 was not 100% truthful!
I think this is a tremendous step in an objective direction and I applaud it, even though "in some places a bit over the top" is the understatement of the election, and this comment is very near the archives.
It's difficult to be objective about a movie that was created with the sole purpose of discrediting your candidate's opponent. On this blog alone, I've witnessed adamant refusals to read anything critical of F-911, and in one case glowing promotion of the movie -- from a person who had not taken the time to see it or research its inaccuracies. This second example is particularly disturbing because it combines the emotionally charged hatred of W with ignorance and political apathy.
I think this describes an alarming portion of the base of the democrat party and of John Kerry's support.
Bob...NOTHING is 100% truthful.
PS- ignorance and political apathy is hardly the sole possession of Democrats. Those who support Dubya can be and have been equally as guilty.
What is so wrong with a filmmaker making a movie with an agenda? Don't act as if this is something new in Hollywood. As for it's "inaccuracies"...well, I guess that depends on which side of the fence you happen to occupy.
Some things are 100% truthful, such as the definition of a circle (pi). While we have theories that suggest the bending of time in seeming violation of our understanding of the laws of physics, the simple circle remains unchallenged in all dimensions and perceptions. F-911 is no circle, and no reasonable set of theories can postulate that it documents any fact other than Michael Moore hates Bush.
That nutjobs (like Moore) and ignorance are present on both wings of the bird is obvious, an assumption that the distribution of either is equal is questionable to say the least.
I'm glad to see that you acknowledge that Hollywood produces products with a (generally left leaning) political motive. The difference between the Hollywood status quo and F-911 is that the latter was heralded as a "documentary" rather than political satire, as its talented creator has termed it. The term documentary brings with it a burden of research and a viewpoint of objectivity that are not expected from works of satire or general entertainment. F-911 was entertaining as political satire, but otherwise unremarkable in of itself.
Facts, or any desire to present them and let the audience decide are foreign to F-911. That F-911 is the product of obtuse hate from its conception through its production and distribution, and that it has purposely been used as an instrument to sway the opinions of the under-informed and to motivate the otherwise uninterested through the purposeful use of deceit is an abomination of free speech.
>That F-911 is the product of obtuse hate from its conception through its production and distribution, and that it has purposely been used as an instrument to sway the opinions of the under-informed and to motivate the otherwise uninterested through the purposeful use of deceit is an abomination of free speech.
Gee, Bob, you seem awfully willing to completely overlook the shameless fear-peddling conducted by Bush and Cheney. If that isn't attempting to sway the underinformed or motivate the otherwise uninterested, I don't know what is.
Moore is guilty only of researching and creating a film that mirrors his political viewpoint. If you don't like it, that's fine. Denying it's validity simply because you disagree with it is reprehensible. For someone who misses no opportunity to assert his "objectivity", this seems rather disingenuous. Moore's free speech is no more an abomination than Dick Cheney asserting that America has a greater chance of being attacked if John Kerry is elected.
There has been nothing more dishonest, disingenuous, and abominable over the past four years than this Administration's lies, deceptions, and pandering to the fears of the American electorate. If you're too "objective" to recognize that, I truly feel sorry for you.
...Other than that, it wasn't a bad flick ;)
I don't think that anybody here has argued that Michael Moore's Farenheit 9/11 is a news documentary. The man planted his heart on his sleeve for all to see, and the film has to be seen in the context of one man's argument.
However, if there is anything factually and maliciously inaccurate, then Michael Moore should be sued for slandar. The fact that he hasn't says a lot.
I would oppose putting it on network television as a "special news program" just before the election, however.