I had never heard of JimK before reading about the “Sicko” previews - who is he? I may be wrong but at this point it seems he is someone gaining fame simply off the success of a major film maker - is this true, or, is this a person of some type of substance?
He and the site were mentioned in an article at Salon.com - I see that you are a regular poster here - can you provide some insight? Curious minds want to know.....
This site was around long before Salon admitted that people were debunking Moore’s work. Moorewatch has been here for years. The few times it did gain any attention, it was usually someone running a DDOS attack. JimK and Lee were both obscure figures in a dark little corner of the internet. I think that it was Mikey himself, in his bit about “Whacko Attackos” that made most people aware that anyone was disputing his version of events in the first place.
The reason this site gets any attention by a relatively mainstream source is because it has been here for so long, doing what it does so well.
He and the site were mentioned in an article at Salon.com - I see that you are a regular poster here - can you provide some insight? Curious minds want to know.....
Now having read the Salon article, I can understand where you got your misconception about JimK. He is the owner of this site, and has spent the last several years here challenging Moore’s tactics and debunking many of his claims. You’ve probably never heard of him or this site before because it doesn’t get nearly as much mainstream press as Moore himself does. I found this place three years ago through bowlingfortruth.com (which has now been completely redone and I’m not even sure has the same mission anymore). So this site and JimK’s practice far precedes the original announcement of Sicko.
What you’re reading is not, in fact, an indication that JimK is trying to get attention from Moore, but actually the reverse. Moore exploited JimK’s financial situation by giving an “anonymous” donation, then revealing it in Sicko, apparently. Moore is not a victim of JimK by any stretch of the imagination.
By the way, there is a ten-post rule before starting new threads. I’m not sure whether it’s enforced in this forum, but know that if this thread gets closed it’s because of that rule and not because of your questions.
JimK is a dude who makes websites, he happened to set up a site years ago to debunk some claims made by Moore. Many people do him king of pop, but is just a man. Many of the words of this forum has made by his people, they take money, and work on it.
My god, I didn’t know about any of this (Moore paying him $12,000) until now. I can’t believe what a cynical and manipulative move Moore made there. How on earth did he think that would come across?! What a f*ckwit.
You are right Sethery, he took advantage of JimK’s position completely. I may disagree with much of JimK’s politics, but that is unbelievable. Of course Jim was going to take the money - why wouldn’t he?! You can’t make an ‘anonymous’ donation and then take advantage of it later. That is dispicable. Moore says “I would have done it anyway”. Now that’s got to be one of the biggest lies he’s ever told.
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. And I can’t help but notice all the links on the home page - no doubt payed click throughs which, for an outsider looking in appears that the owner is “weezing off his gig”. Don’t get rid of the click throughs but rather replace them with readings that support the owner’s assertions, for example, get rid of “Michael Moore is a big fat.....” 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.
I think this is the very reason he is calling attention to the owner. People are just burnt out on the propaganda and he is capitalizing on that. Once an avid FOX viewer, it was the only news I ever watched, I have since grown sickeningly bored - it has been years since I have tuned in to any program on that network.
As for the donation I believe that it was intentional - not because he is “afraid” of the owner, but rather to bring attention to the name calling, pettiness and cheap shots that goes on here that everyone is so sick of. People are wisening up (think GW’s approval rating) and he is using that to his advantage. Where MM says “I would have done it anyway” I think that is something he would like to believe in his own mind. But I also believe that he seriously believes in what he does. In regard to the big picture, he is raising awareness to the fact that we are so wrapped up in our own worlds that we have grown desensitized to what is going on in the world, and we better start paying attention before we wake up one day and find the rug pulled out from under us. Who cares about his opinions on religion? I don’t. Who cares about the state of the healthcare system in this country? I do and it is about time someone brought that to the forefront. Just as socialism can easily go too far to the left, capitalism can as easily, and will, go too far right.
I’d just like to touch on a couple points here… hopefully none of the established posters will be offended by my jumping in…
angtro - 20 May 2007 04:19 AM
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.
I’m rather curious to know where you’re seeing all this “hate.” Is it the people calling JimK a douchebag for not immediately returning the money that was donated with the express purpose of later making him look like a jerk? Is it the people emailing him saying that he’s like a Jewish guard in a concentration camp and they hope his wife dies? Or maybe just the people who waltzed in knowing nothing but what they read in a bad news article and started spewing stuff like, oh, “Just proves what a sad little man, JimK is. I’m even inclined to say that he is more pathetic than a shit-eating hippie.”
I agree, that’s the kind of mindless hate that doesn’t lead to a lot of credibility, and certainly is not respectful or meaningful discussion.
Though somehow, I don’t think that’s what you were referring to.
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.
...wait, what?
First, the site has been flooded over the last day or so with people using the same basic form-- “I knew nothing about Moore or Moorewatch until today, and have concluded that JimK is a vile and worthless piece of scum.” Your initial post, while not so over the top, has a similar premise, so hopefully you can understand why someone might first jump to the conclusion that you were just another troll.
That being said, comparing the number of views of a thread to the number of replies in it, and from that making conclusions on the nature of an entire forum, is not logical. Looking just below this thread I see “"Sicko" previewed” with 871 views and 35 replies. If my math is correct, that’s a significantly worse ratio than the 7 replies in 98 views which you are basing such sweeping generalizations on, and by your logic would seem to indicate a disinterest in the very topic you claim causes everyone here to just boil over in hate. I could keep going through the forums, but I suspect that would bore you even more than it would bore me.
My god, I didn’t know about any of this (Moore paying him $12,000) until now. I can’t believe what a cynical and manipulative move Moore made there. How on earth did he think that would come across?! What a f*ckwit.
You are right Sethery, he took advantage of JimK’s position completely. I may disagree with much of JimK’s politics, but that is unbelievable. Of course Jim was going to take the money - why wouldn’t he?! You can’t make an ‘anonymous’ donation and then take advantage of it later. That is dispicable. Moore says “I would have done it anyway”. Now that’s got to be one of the biggest lies he’s ever told.
yep. not real cool. I can’t even imagine the mindset he was in when he decided to do that.
I had never heard of JimK before reading about the “Sicko” previews - who is he? I may be wrong but at this point it seems he is someone gaining fame simply off the success of a major film maker - is this true, or, is this a person of some type of substance?
First of all, you are conflating substance with fame and success. Just because you’ve never heard of someone doesn’t mean their POV is insubstantial. I’d suggest that rather than asking us whether JimK’s views are substantial, you might try reading his blog archive and making up your own mind (that’s if you want to know as sincerely as you claim)
Furthermore, JimK and Moorewatch probably have gained some minor fame from this revelation. But who is responsible for that? Um, Michael Moore, perhaps? Didn’t he break this story when he de-anonymised his anonymous gift? So how is that JimK’s fault?
Frankly, I find it hard to fault JimK’s conduct in this matter. Let’s walk thru this one step at a time.
1. JimK starts a website criticising Moore. He takes aim at both Moore’s political philosophy as well as his political tactics. (Let me try and illustrate the distinction. JimK would criticise Moore’s philosophy on gun control, but he would also criticise the tactic Moore used of climaxing his gun control movie with an ambush interview with an unprepared, aging movie star in his own home.) Now, you can disagree with JimK’s views here, but there’s nothing illegal or immoral about expressing an opinion.
2. JimK receives an anonymous gift of 12K. He is suspicious of the origin, but needs the money, so he accepts it. Nothing illegal or immoral there either.
3. Michael Moore tells the world that he gave JimK the money and that right-wing bloggers should give him a break. JimK reasserts his right to criticise Moore’s politics (and fair enough, you have to be an idiot to expect him to change his views). But further to that, he basically argues that Moore’s gift was a political “tactic” - like the one used against Charlton Heston - to set him up to look like an idiot no matter what he does or says.
It seems to me JimK can’t win. Just like Charlton Heston was, JimK’s been unfairly set up as the punchline in a piece of didactic political satire.
And what about Michael Moore’s conduct. He gave an anonymous gift to one of his strongest critic and then told the world about his generosity right before the world premiere of his movie. That’s wrong in so many ways I don’t know where to begin.
Like CM, I’m not a huge fan of JimK’s politics, but he has provided a forum for me to say whatever I like (within reason) and has never censored me or threatened to censor me in any way, so I absolutely defend his right to write whatever he wants. And I also applaud him for keeping his site going when things got tough, and for having the wit to grab a $12,000 opportunity when it came along.
So if the publicity from this exchange attracts more readers to JimK’s site and he benefits from that, then good for him.
I think we need a section somewhere explaining a little about the forums. Not that anyone would read it, of course, but it would mean we could direct people to it rather than explaining every time.
It’s a strange state of affairs, but the Moorewatch forum is actually very different from the main site. The vast amount of people who comment on the main site don’t visit the forum, and vice versa. Similarly, the Moorewatch bloggers (JimK, Lee, Paratrooper etc) visit the forum once in a blue moon. In a strange way the forum has a very different dynamic to the main site (which is in fact evidenced by how rarely the Moore forum is actually used, compared to the other catergories). Some of the main posters who rarely visit the main forum at all; CM, who seems to spend approximately 23.5 hours a day on the forum (:P) didn’t even know about the $12,000 donation until you posted it.
I don’t know about everyone else, but then it feels quite strange to me when you say you see a lot of hate on the site, when a lot of the people you’re speaking to don’t actually visit the site (we have a pretty vocal and established left-wing contingent here, which doesn’t exist on the main site at all).
As everyone has pretty much explained already, this site appeared (I think) some years before Fahrenheit came out, and many of us have been around on the site for a few of those years. I don’t know what JimK does for a living, but it’s pretty well catalogued the costs of running the site so he’s not in it for the money. It does seem weird the attention it’s getting now, but it certainly isn’t for the publicity or making money in opposition to Moore.
I guess I’d have to ask you to forgive some of the comments you originally recieved. As I said, most of us have been here for ages, and the vast majority of new posters generally turn out to be trolls intent on disrupting the discussion and venting their hate at a bunch of people they have no knowledge of. So it’s easy to be short-tempered at somewhere who could appear to be trolling, it’s a bit of an ingrained response after what we normally see here. I can’t speak for the main site, but I can promise you (as a fairly left-wing UK poster) that the forum is a pretty cool place to discuss politics and everything else.
Mmm, I just love the depth and insight you added to the discussion. I’m glad to see it isn’t confined to just the threads you start. However, woudl you care to enlighten the ignorant masses as to how, esactly, JimK got “owned” (and may I say how proud I am you resisted the urge to spell it ‘pwned’).
