angtro - 20 May 2007 04:19 AM

Thank you for the replies.  I am not doubting the owner’s assertions about the credibility of MM’s work but after further reading of the site I feel a lot of hate here - just pointing out that the name calling, etc. leads more to a lack of credibility than attention to the real issues.  I believe that the site would get more attention and respect if the hate were replaced with more rational, respectful, and meaningful discussion.

Nobody here has claimed JimK is an angelic figure.  I personally don’t care for the name-calling either.  Let’s just say that, if I had kids, I wouldn’t want JimK teaching their Sunday school.  :) I also think, however, that JimK would hate to do so, so we’re cool.  If you actually spend time reading JimK’s stuff, you’ll find more substance than “hate”.  And if you compare this site to several left-wing alternatives, like Daily Kos or Huffington Post, you’ll find a much lower proportion of hate here.  JimK’s angst is also focused on one man who has documented himself performing many self-interested deeds and deceptions while claiming altruistic intentions and honesty, and his uncritical followers.  Those other sites often berate entire groups of people, sometimes to the point of anti-semitism.  They definitely have JimK beat for “hate”.

Out of 98 views I received only 7 replies, and of those, only half gave me an honest, rational answer - had I posed the substance question on MM’s site, MM supporters would have jumped right in with plenty of interesting and serious topics of discussion - which leads me to believe that the majority here are more MM haters than actual truth seekers.

I’m going to have to call you out here.  My understanding is that MM shut down his forums a couple of years ago, presumably because some posters started questioning his methods.  I’ve heard that from others and cannot speak to its veracity, but what I do know is that I cannot find any public forum on his site.  Even if there is some secret forum somewhere, you cannot pretend that it is more open-minded than Moorewatch, which is linked from the front page, has open registration, no administrator activation, and with virtually no censorship.  If you know of any forums at all on MM’s site, please post the link here.  Otherwise, you’ve lost a few points with the quote above.

That’s exactly what happened Seth, Moore and his webmaster shut the forums down (once again long before Fahrenheit came out) because so many people were signing up to criticise his work, and no doubt to troll as well (in all honesty). There are a couple of unofficial forums around dedicated to his fans, the biggest of which is probably http://www.upsizethis.org, although it appears to have restructured into a general left-wing site since I last visited.

Night - 20 May 2007 10:55 AM

That’s exactly what happened Seth, Moore and his webmaster shut the forums down (once again long before Fahrenheit came out) because so many people were signing up to criticise his work, and no doubt to troll as well (in all honesty). There are a couple of unofficial forums around dedicated to his fans, the biggest of which is probably http://www.upsizethis.org, although it appears to have restructured into a general left-wing site since I last visited.

Interesting, thanks Night!  I didn’t start looking into Moore until the 2004 election here, so I missed observing that story as it happened.

Victoria - 20 May 2007 11:01 AM

“AMERICA is always THE best system and all other are shit”, “solidarity and help is for pussies”, “real men can provide for their families through their work and bring food and medicine to the table”.

If nothing else he gave you a modest space right here to squat and let go some hot piss, to show his unthinking minions firsthand who the truly best people are.

Wancha KO us dim prudes by “victoriasly” flashing some boobage, hon. Cmon, set them free. Let them fly.

Victoria - 20 May 2007 11:01 AM

So not only did JimK make a mockery of what he stands for by asking and accepting solidarity help…

Please locate and link to where JimK has claimed that nobody should ever accept private charity.

Victoria - 20 May 2007 01:04 PM

You really set the tone for what the right wing call “respect” and “high mindedness” on this forum Biafra.

I told you about him when you first came here.  Don’t act surprised now.  Don’t pretend he’s the high-bar here, either.

Speaking of high-bars, you set a pretty good one for yourself here when you started, but haven’t approached it since.  It seems like you gave up trying.

Jim, I really don’t understand what the giant problem is with you just saying “Thank you.”

Let other people dissect Moore’s motives. Your wife was sick. She’s getting treatment. That’s the bottom line. That’s a good thing. Look in her face, and forget the politics for a minute. Lose the hate. Express your love. Not for Moore. For her.

angtro - 20 May 2007 04:19 AM

and replace them with readings that would attract a wider audience, not just MM haters - this became apparent from the responses, and lack thereof to my original post.  Out of 98 views I received only 7 replies, and of those, only half gave me an honest, rational answer - had I posed the substance question on MM’s site, MM supporters would have jumped right in with plenty of interesting and serious topics of discussion - which leads me to believe that the majority here are more MM haters than actual truth seekers.

Yeah, we’re all moore haters here, who have nothing better to spend our time talking about but how much we hate moore, that’s why you see SO MANY posts about Moore in this section and the other sections are practically dead. Everyone here lives to hate moore!

:roll:

Most of the info on Moore is contained in the blog posts on the main page, so if someone is a “truth seeker”, thats where we’d refer them. The forum isn’t really the place to debunk moore. This section has news and some discussion of him, but the vast majority of the comments on here are about other topics. It’s more of a generic political forum. The Moore action is all on the front page. As such, the site is separated into two groups, as Night mentioned — the front page people and the forum people. Generally speaking, the people more interested in Moore stick to the front pages whereas the people who want to discuss more topics spend their time here.

If you had spent 10mins poking around this site, front page and forums, you should have been able to find that out. If you had spent some time reading around before making this post and trying to get us to do the work for you you may have been able to answer your own question, or at least to pose a more specific question to us. Asking us basically “is this a person of substance”? Seriously… how are we supposed to respond to that? JimK is just the webmaster. We’re not here because of him, so why would we go into long winded, heart felt expressions of precisely what JimK means to us? The quick answer is — he’s the webmaster of this site.

BTW never judge a post by the number of views. Just because there are 98 views doesn’t mean there are 98 frothing at the mouth moore haters reading the topic, with 91 deciding not to reply.

First, we have lurkers, they never post, so it has nothing to do with you (and given the events of the last couple of days, I’m sure we’ve got more lurkers than ever around here). Second, there were several replies before you posted again. I know that I checked the thread once before I posted to it, then once again after when I saw a new reply. This means that at least 3 of those views are from me. Third, occasionally a person will read a post, then read the replies, see that someone else has already essentially said what he was going to say and decide he doesn’t need to reply. And those are just 3 reasons that came to me off the top of my head.

The number of views vs the number of replies says nothing about this board, the main blog or the quality of posters on either one.

You may not have realized it at first, but as I said above you asked what is kind of a stupid question, and you got some real results, but also some stupid answers. “Ask a silly question....” and all that…

JimK has the entire front page, not to mention his personal site, from which you can gather information about him if you so desire. You come here and ask us to explain who he is, and basically the most concise answer is precisely the one I gave in my post (which is no doubt one of the ones you dismiss):

Who is JimK?

My original answer: JimK is a dude who makes websites, he happened to set up a site years ago to debunk some claims made by Moore.

Really, what more is there to say? If you want in depth discussion about his role in Sicko, go to the front page where he himself has put up several posts describing what happened and telling his side of things. If you have a question, put it in a comment there or send the man an email.

Forgive me for being cynical about your motives. You came here and asked us a question that is basically answered on the front page.  You then followed up our responses with a long winded post accusing us on several occasions of being oh-so-hateful. Your posts thus far have shown that you either a) are too dense to read the front page and see the situation for what it is, or b) don’t care to. Either way, that raises the red troll flag in my mind....

In my experience, people who are genuinely interested in interacting with people on a forum don’t come barging in, ask leading questions and then procede to make pronouncements about everyone on the site.... all within their first 4 posts.

Applepie - 20 May 2007 02:32 PM

Jim, I really don’t understand what the giant problem is with you just saying “Thank you.”

Let other people dissect Moore’s motives. Your wife was sick. She’s getting treatment. That’s the bottom line. That’s a good thing. Look in her face, and forget the politics for a minute. Lose the hate. Express your love. Not for Moore. For her.

Apple: Have you read the front page? Have you paid any attention to what Jim has said? My suggestion: Go read it again, because your comments show a lack of understanding of some of the basic facts of the situation.

Once you’ve done that, ifyou still feel the same way, why don’t you post here exactly what in anything that Jim said that in any way implies that he can’t “see past politics”, doesn’t love his wife and isn’t happy that she is doing better?

Also, if you have a message for Jim, send him an email or put it in the blog comments. He generally doesn’t come around here.

OK, here’s what Jim wrote:

>What am I supposed to be grateful for?  The chance to look like an ass?  The chance to be in his movie?  For him throwing me pocket change in order to try to humiliate me later?  That’s why he did it.  Period.

How about, “badly needed care for his wife at a hard time?” Why is this all about him, instead of about his wife? He doesn’t think Moore is sincere? Fine. He can still say “thank you. This won’t change what I think of Michael Moore, this won’t affect what I write, but thank you.”

If that’s all you’ve read, you’ve missed a ton.  Try again.  I’m not going to spend more time on this than you’re willing to.

Applepie - 20 May 2007 03:18 PM

OK, here’s what Jim wrote:

>What am I supposed to be grateful for?  The chance to look like an ass?  The chance to be in his movie?  For him throwing me pocket change in order to try to humiliate me later?  That’s why he did it.  Period.

How about, “badly needed care for his wife at a hard time?” Why is this all about him, instead of about his wife? He doesn’t think Moore is sincere? Fine. He can still say “thank you. This won’t change what I think of Michael Moore, this won’t affect what I write, but thank you.”

Did you skip this post? From the post with the message from moore:

Thank you, Michael.  I appreciate the help and I always have.  You know that, of course, because I posted right here on the site that I was grateful to the guardian angel long before this became an issue for the press to feed on.  I hope that your Cannes screening goes well, but more importantly I hope you’ve used your power to tell the truth this time.  I’d love to support this movie, as I’m no friend of the HMO.

One difference between the two comments is that one came before he knew he was in the movie and the second came after.

But then, here’s a comment from after he knew:

Lastly, I have in fact thanked Michael time and time again, and would take this opportunity to do so once more:

Michael Moore: Thank you.  Regardless of all the publicity, the emails, the nonsense that others are adding to this situation, you did in fact help me at a time when I needed it, and I am grateful for that.  Emotionally, I feel like you did something nice.  It doesn’t change how I feel about your work intellectually, but you did do something that truly helped me and my family and for that, I thank you.

There are two issues at play here. One is that Moore sent JimK some money to help him with his bills. The other is that Moore then used this, without notifying JimK, in his movie.

JimK is (rightfully) angry with more for attempting to exploit him. This says nothing about his feelings for his wife. Nothing.

If I were in this situation, I think I’d feel exactly like Jim seems to — conflicted. On the one hand, i’m sure the money helped him out (who wouldn’t benefit from an extra 12K?), but on the other hand, I’d have to wonder what Moore intended when he did this. If he had kept it quiet, I could think he just wanted to help out.... but he went and put it in his movie, so this wasn’t just something he did out of the kindness of his heart. I’d feel used, exploited. I’d be mad about that.

And all of these emotions, and all the discussions are exactly what Moore intended, IMO. He gave the appearence of helping Jim, but then turned around and hurt him with it. IMO, he did this because he thought it could help him, not because he wanted to help Jim.

Like anyone, I’m grateful for charity. But I am not grateful for someone who thinks that by “donating” something to me “out of the kindness of his heart” that he is going to be able to use me.

Moore’s actions in sending the check initially seemed praiseworthy, but in the last 48hrs the whole thing has become completely dispicable to me.

By defeinding him, it’s almost as though you are saying that “the means justify the ends” (yes, I know that’s backwards, this whole thing is backwards) Sorry, I’m not buying that.

The movie is about the American healthcare system, of which Jim is a victim. Jim is being ‘used’ in the same way that Moore is being ‘used’ by beting the Big Debbil in the this website. If Jim can’t stand the attention, maybe he should make his own subject and generate his own publicity. If he wants to look at this just as a battle of PR, he should get down on his knees to thank his lucky stars that Moore put the thing in his film. He gets a twofer: care for his wife, and more hits on the site. But instead he drags out the little handkerchief and starts playing the little violin, o poor exploited me.

Just tactically, he looks much better and classier if says ‘thank you for helping my wife and for building my hits.” Just my opinion.

Applepie - 20 May 2007 04:22 PM

Just tactically, he looks much better and classier if says ‘thank you for helping my wife and for building my hits.” Just my opinion.

Have you read yet where he actually did thank Moore for the money?  It’s never been about web hits, or JimK would have done something dramatic years ago.

With each new post you’re only further demonstrating that you’re only here to type, not to read.

Applepie - 20 May 2007 04:22 PM

Just tactically, he looks much better and classier if says ‘thank you for helping my wife and for building my hits.” Just my opinion.

And my opinion is that he should set the record straight if he believes that people have their facts wrong, which, judging by many of the comments I’ve seen in the last day or so, the trackbacks that are coming here, and the news articles, they DO.

Jim is in a bit of a lose/lose situation right now — and Moore is the one mostly to blame for putting him there. As I see it, at this point, Moore is defining the situation, people are getting bad information, so JimK is trying to get his voice heard.

I don’t understand why you have a problem with that.

If JimK simply found out it was from Moore, nothing more, I’d be of the opinion that JimK should keep quiet about it and continue to thank his “angel”. But that’s now how it went down. Moore put it in the movie. Moore sat thousands of miles away from Jim and exploited him personally in a film and press conference without Jim knowing it.

And yet, Jim is the one who’s supposedly being classless?!

Jim wasn’t mentioned in the movie because he runs a Moore website (something I’d think Jim should expect), Jim was mentioned because his wife is sick (something that, IMO, should be off limits) I’d think if he had just given him attention, Jim might not have minded the free publicity. But put yourself in his shoes for a second — Jim has a problem with Moore’s movies, Moore addresses Jim by bringing his personal situation into this, how would you feel if you were him?

And yes, I know, Jim did mention it on this site, but just because I might give some personal info about myself doesn’t give you the right in the future to use that info against me to prove a point. It was a hit below the belt as far as I’m concerned. One Moore should be ashamed of himself for, and one that JimK has every right to be angry about.