Applepie - 20 May 2007 08:52 PM

Why is the anonymous thing such a giant issue?

Because it was on this basis that
(a) the money was offered, and
(b) the money was accepted.

Why is entrapment considered illegal when cops do it? Do you think they should be allowed to set people up, and then just say it was an accident (despite clear motive) and argue “how could anyone possibly know what we were thinking when we set it up”? Of course not. That’s why they can’t do it. The reasons are obvious.
The same theory applies. You are giving an extraordinary benefit of a very serious doubt to Moore. Why? The suspicion must lie heavily with an intent here. Because the motive is just too strong.

Why is entrapment considered illegal when cops do it?

Except JimK found out who gave the money because Moore released the info. He gave JimK an opportunity to say --ooh, tainted money, can’t accept it. But he didn’t. He said (grudgingly, surly) thank you. And that changed it.

As far as I am aware, he didn’t “desperately need it.”

I thought his words were “it came in handy?”

Gee.  Then when he found out it came from Moore, he should have said, “take it back.”

I could use 12,000 dollars right now, and some guy whose tactics I didn’t agree with gave it to me, I’d keep it.
I guess I don’t think like you.

Applepie - 20 May 2007 11:57 PM

As far as I am aware, he didn’t “desperately need it.”

I thought his words were “it came in handy?”

Gee.  Then when he found out it came from Moore, he should have said, “take it back.”

Why?

Applepie - 20 May 2007 11:55 PM

Why is entrapment considered illegal when cops do it?

Except JimK found out who gave the money because Moore released the info. He gave JimK an opportunity to say --ooh, tainted money, can’t accept it. But he didn’t. He said (grudgingly, surly) thank you. And that changed it.

When did he get the money, and then when did he find out it was definitely Moore?

Applepie - 20 May 2007 11:57 PM

As far as I am aware, he didn’t “desperately need it.”

I thought his words were “it came in handy?”

Gee.  Then when he found out it came from Moore, he should have said, “take it back.”

If the anonymous exploitation thing is no big deal to you (in fact, a GOOD thing), I can’t possibly understand why keeping the money would be.  You need to describe in vivid detail where your ethical lines are, because they seem to be nothing but random doodles.

I don’t know why I’m bothering here, but for the benefit, perhaps, of a lurker....

Applepie - 20 May 2007 08:46 PM

Moore gave JimK $12,000 JimK desperately needed to care for his sick wife, and then gave him an enormous publicity boost for this website by including it in the film. If this is exploitation, I think a lot of rightwing website operators would love to be exploited this way. Moore is suppposed to apologize for possibly saving JimK’s wife’s life? For boosting JimK’s hits?

No, he’s supposed to apologize for attempting to take advantage of Jim by making a supposedly “good faith” anonymous donation to him, only to turn around a year later and exploit the situation to make a political point, without even so much as a warning to Jim that he intended to do so.

Also, Jim did not say that he “desperately needed” money for insurance. He did not ask for donations to help care for his wife. Moore took it upon himself to make contact with Jim and donate him this money.(Hey, lookie! I can use bold too!!) If someone told you Jim asked for the money, that Jim’s wife would have died without the money or any other such thing, be it Moore or whatever site it was that brought you here, that person was mistaken (or lying to you)

Applepie - 20 May 2007 08:52 PM

I can’t read Moore’s mind. Why is the anonymous thing such a giant issue? He didn’t sign a pledge. He just gave the money. Maybe he was planning to put it in the movie. But he made no pledge, or promise or anything else to JimK. He just wrote JimK a check, which JimK cashed -and then didn’t return when he found out the source.

The fact that Moore decided to make an anonymous donation to a guy is not a big deal. The fact that Moore decided to reveal to the recipient that he was the one who made the donation isn’t a big deal. The fact that the press found out isn’t even that big of a deal.

The big deal is that Moore is exploiting a random guy to make a point in his movie without prior notification, let alone permission.

Jim was given an offer of money from an “angel” who saw his posts and wanted to do something nice for him. Jim accepted that money. The so-called “angel” then turned around and used Jim, Jim’s wife, and his own interpretation of their situation in order to make a political point. He didn’t talk about Jim’s criticism of him or of his work on this website. Instead, he chose to address a critic of his on personal terms. He didn’t ask Jim how he felt about his situation, health insurance, his wife, whatever and then put that in the movie, he didn’t have one conversation with him.

That was a despicable thing to do. I really don’t understand why this is so hard for so many people to process.

Applepie - 20 May 2007 08:58 PM

And here’s the other thing. If JimK had, once he learned Moore was the source, said, sorry, I can’t accept this; I intend to return it as soon as I can, this is tainted money,then yes, Moore should not and I think would not have included it in the film.

But JimK didn’t. Why? I’m not going to read his mind.

I can’t read Jim’s mind either… but if I had to guess I’d say that the fact that there was a year between the two might possibly have something to do with it. Oh, and the fact that when he took/cashed the check he was of the understanding that the donation was made in good faith didn’t hurt either, I bet.

angtro - 19 May 2007 10:51 PM

Thanks bathory, but that was a serious question - anyone else?

What fame?

CM - 20 May 2007 03:03 AM

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.

Or the one where he was quoted as saying he had to debate whether to include it in the film… yeah, maybe from a PR / Spin POV (can I get away looking like an ok guy here)....

That and Moore hardly gives anything to charities…

Hey Sethery… remember when I said this?

ducky duck duck duck - 20 May 2007 05:30 PM

Sethery - 20 May 2007 05:20 PM

There’s that compassion for the “little guy” for which Moore fans are renowned.

Yup, it’s amazing, isn’t it? Somehow, all Moore’s tactics are excused because he is “looking out for hte little guy”, even the tactic that involves stepping on the little guy because it fit’s the narrative.

I think I may have figured it out:

Applepie - 20 May 2007 05:43 PM

Oh, c’mon. The plea was for compassion for “the little guy.” JimK has been loudly badmouthing and baiting Moore for years. I really don’t think “little guy” is a synonym for “loudmouth blowhard,” but maybe I’m just not conservative enough.

It’s all in how you define “the little guy”.... to these people, someone like Moore can exploit anyone he wants, provided that person disagrees with them politically/socially/whatever. Those people aren’t really the little guy....

Applepie - 20 May 2007 05:07 PM

But here’s a thought. Moore’s film is about shortcomings in the American healthcare system. Why doesn’t JimK just take the high road and tell everyone how well the free enterprise/charity safety net in the system worked for him?

I think JimK mentioned he avoided signing up for a government program on principle.... A private donation from a benefactor seemed more the high road.

JimK’s self employed and wasn’t doing well financially at the time (my understanding of the facts). He probably qualified for an existing government program.

Applepie - 20 May 2007 08:46 PM

Moore gave JimK $12,000 JimK desperately needed to care for his sick wife, and then gave him an enormous publicity boost for this website by including it in the film. If this is exploitation, I think a lot of rightwing website operators would love to be exploited this way. Moore is suppposed to apologize for possibly saving JimK’s wife’s life? For boosting JimK’s hits?

Give the ‘right wing’ stuff a rest. Not agreeing with Mike Moore does not right wing make.

Over in Euroland more than a few ‘right wingers’ love Moore.... BTW....

Applepie - 20 May 2007 08:58 PM

And here’s the other thing. If JimK had, once he learned Moore was the source, said, sorry, I can’t accept this; I intend to return it as soon as I can, this is tainted money,then yes, Moore should not and I think would not have included it in the film.

But JimK didn’t. Why? I’m not going to read his mind.

What I support, and what I was led to believe, was this was a private individual that wanted to remain anonymous who just wanted to help me on a person-to-person basis.  That is why I said yes.  That, and what kind of moron turns down a free twelve grand?

Again, please let me be crystal clear on what I think is the most important poiunt here: I was told this was a private individual who just wanted to help me personally.  It had nothing to do with the site, politics or anything else.  I was told it was just someone who decided they could help another person.  That is why I said yes.

http://www.moorewatch.com/index.php/weblog/beating_someone_to_the_punch/

f the anonymous exploitation thing is no big deal to you (in fact, a GOOD thing), I can’t possibly understand why keeping the money would be.  You need to describe in vivid detail where your ethical lines are, because they seem to be nothing but random doodles.

What’s the ethical issue? You keep bringing up the phrase “anonymous exploitation,” without explaining what the beef is, How was JimK damaged or hurt? He got $12K and a publicity boost. Please say exactly how anything but his feelings were hurt.