20 May 07
I think he functions like a lens who focuses interest on subjects that would otherwise be neglected. He isn't very reliable, and he is at heart basically a showman. But he is in his defence a very good showman.
I don't think he's made a good film since Bowling For Columbine; and even then, I preferred him his TV Nation days, which were better suited to examining the United States' dark underbelly.
- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 199203
20 May 07
Originally posted by zeeblebotYou know, conservatives often accuse liberals of class envy for telling people what they should do with their own money. Moore gave the guy 12 grand. If he wants to make a broader point with the money, that's Moore's business.
moore is probably floating in cash. if he wanted to do something for the guy, he could of done it anonymously. and the recipient is right, it looks like moore is doing it for publicity for his new movie.
The "victim" makes it sound like some sort of elaborate prank. Well, if anybody wants to play that kind of prank on me, to say that I'll accept it with grace would be an understatement.
20 May 07
Originally posted by Palynkait's not anonymous if you tell even one other person about it, especially if that person is connected to showbiz, even peripherally.
He did it anonymously and you were claiming he didn't. That was my point.
And why shouldn't he tell his friends?
it's only anonymous if you intend to keep it a secret.
otherwise, it's false anonymity.
moore could easily have arranged for true anonymity. that he chose not to is indicative of his true intent.
20 May 07
Originally posted by Kunsoocrumbs from a rich man's table ...
You know, conservatives often accuse liberals of class envy for telling people what they should do with their own money. Moore gave the guy 12 grand. If he wants to make a broader point with the money, that's Moore's business.
The "victim" makes it sound like some sort of elaborate prank. Well, if anybody wants to play that kind of prank on me, to say that I'll accept it with grace would be an understatement.
suppose you were the poor guy, and George W. Bush was the rich guy. and after you accepted the "anonymous" donation, GWB's friends were crowing to a gossip columnist, "hey, Kunsoo took the money!"
20 May 07
Originally posted by zeeblebotIf George W Bush had just released a policy statement outlining the need for a national health service in the United States, I'd say his stunt had helped make his point.
crumbs from a rich man's table ...
suppose you were the poor guy, and George W. Bush was the rich guy. and after you accepted the "anonymous" donation, GWB's friends were crowing to a gossip columnist, "hey, Kunsoo took the money!"
20 May 07
Originally posted by WajomaIndeed. I doubt that Michael Moore, out of overt concern for a woman's welfare, donated the money. According to the following link, Moore even included the story of his "anonymous" donation in the film!
It was a blatant PR trick, hopefully it backfires when people see it for what it is.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/TV/05/19/film.michaelmoore.ap/index.html?eref=rss_topstories
The tragedy of U.S. healthcare deserves better treatment than that offered by Moore, who is too interested in shock and self-aggrandizement to be taken seriously as a documentarian.
20 May 07
Originally posted by KunsooOf course Moore can do what he wants with his money, but that isn't the point. The point is that it is egregiously callous to exploit another's suffering for one's own publicity.
You know, conservatives often accuse liberals of class envy for telling people what they should do with their own money. Moore gave the guy 12 grand. If he wants to make a broader point with the money, that's Moore's business.
The "victim" makes it sound like some sort of elaborate prank. Well, if anybody wants to play that kind of prank on me, to say that I'll accept it with grace would be an understatement.
20 May 07
Originally posted by bbarrOn the one hand, Moore gets publicity, and is $12,000 down.
Of course Moore can do what he wants with his money, but that isn't the point. The point is that it is egregiously callous to exploit another's suffering for one's own publicity.
On the other hand, the anti-Moore website, moorewatch.com gets publicity (which is probably needed a lot more than Moore needs it), it stays in existence, Kenefick's medical problems were alleviated and Kenefick's very sick wife gets much needed treatment.
The negativity of some people astounds. It seems there are "the glass is half-full" people, "the glass is half-empty" people, and "Why did you refill my glass? What do you want from me?" people.
Thank god Gandhi isn't around in this era of pessimism and negativity. 😕 I'm not comparing Moore to Gandhi, just commenting on the fact that some people will find the negative in the most positive of acts.
D
- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 199203
20 May 07
Originally posted by zeeblebotIf it would save my wife I would accept the money graciously and then debate Bush on whatever point he was trying to make.
crumbs from a rich man's table ...
suppose you were the poor guy, and George W. Bush was the rich guy. and after you accepted the "anonymous" donation, GWB's friends were crowing to a gossip columnist, "hey, Kunsoo took the money!"
But then, this guy isn't into constructive debate. His whole site is one big personal attack. He doesn't have the capacity to accept the money with grace. He can't even acknowledge the humanity of the guy who saved his ass.
It was win-win for Moore. Either his opponent had to acknowledge his humanity, or he sank himself. I'm not saying the motives were pure. But I'm certain that Moore is happy for the guy's wife.
- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 199203
20 May 07
Originally posted by RagnorakGandhi was a great man, but he wasn't perfect either. Neither is Moore.
On the one hand, Moore gets publicity, and is $12,000 down.
On the other hand, the anti-Moore website, moorewatch.com gets publicity (which is probably needed a lot more than Moore needs it), it stays in existence, Kenefick's medical problems were alleviated and Kenefick's very sick wife gets much needed treatment.
The negativity of some people astoun ...[text shortened]... on the fact that some people will find the negative in the most positive of acts.
D
20 May 07
Originally posted by Kunsooobviously, he didn't want to debate you if he donated the money to you "anonymously". cause you're the only one in the dark, and it won't last long. just til he manages to get the word out, "anonymously".
If it would save my wife I would accept the money graciously and then debate Bush on whatever point he was trying to make.
But then, this guy isn't into constructive debate. His whole site is one big personal attack. He doesn't have the capacity to accept the money with grace. He can't even acknowledge the humanity of the guy who saved his ass.
It wa ...[text shortened]... not saying the motives were pure. But I'm certain that Moore is happy for the guy's wife.
20 May 07
Originally posted by RagnorakWhy on earth would you mention Ghandi and Moore in the same breath?
On the one hand, Moore gets publicity, and is $12,000 down.
On the other hand, the anti-Moore website, moorewatch.com gets publicity (which is probably needed a lot more than Moore needs it), it stays in existence, Kenefick's medical problems were alleviated and Kenefick's very sick wife gets much needed treatment.
The negativity of some people astoun ...[text shortened]... on the fact that some people will find the negative in the most positive of acts.
D
Do you really believe Moore's contribution was "the most positive of acts."?