Sorry, but do you not understand what I am trying to say with the example? Or do you disagree with the point itself, regardless of what example I use?
I’m going to go with Option Number C: not a good example. When several people pointed out that your example compared Moore to Hamas, you seemingly implied that it should be an agreeable proposition on “Moorewatch”, even though nobody else agreed with you. If it was actually a good example, it could probably use some further explanation.
Sorry, but do you not understand what I am trying to say with the example? Or do you disagree with the point itself, regardless of what example I use?
It’s a shit example, period. It makes no sense in the context of the 12k situation, which has already been explained.
The point itself is also pretty weak. Unless you can make the case that Moore’s donation is going to buy him any slack from Jim, why does it need to be returned?
Sorry, but do you not understand what I am trying to say with the example? Or do you disagree with the point itself, regardless of what example I use?
Yes. I posit that JimK does not hate Michael Moore. I say he loves his wife more than he dislikes Moore, and the 12K gate backs up what I am saying. Your saying JimK hates Moore as much as the world hates Hamas, which, I think, is a terrible example. Nobody died for that money (maybe some brain cells), it was given willingly by Mooreons. I have never heard JimK wish Mikey was dead or any harm on Mikey or anyone in his family. If Moore’s wife got sick, I certainly don’t think JimK would use it to make a point.
So, I guess I disagree with your point and comparison.
Sorry, but do you not understand what I am trying to say with the example? Or do you disagree with the point itself, regardless of what example I use?
First things first… need a good example before knowing the answer....
(which, of course, will force you to work through the issues to come up with one… which in the end might do something to your POV on the issue)
LOL
How about a Gay rights group accepting money from an openly anti gay group.
I can come up with hypotheticals all day. The point is that, for this site called Moorewatch which purports to watch Moore’s every move, the critisisms and such are now a little more suspect. Is JimK going to really be as hard on Mike now that he knows Mike gave him the $12,000? Of course he says he will, but of course he would say that.
Examples aside, that is the problem. JimK should choose which is moore important. Paying back the 12000 and restoring ALL credibility is one option. The other is admitting that the site, and his credibility on it are simply not worth the $12,000 he would have to pay back.
I don’t see why receiving money from someone is a reason for your credibility to be shaken. Certainly, there would be some doubt if JimK was to continue receiving money, or if there was a chance it would happen again. But exactly why is JimK likely to less critical now that Moore has played a trick on him? If anything I would say the risk is that JimK would become too critical and personal against Moore. Not that I expect that to happen, but I would say it’s the more likely of the two.
I think it is the opposite of what you say Night. We all know that it was a nasty little trick Mike pulled. If he wanted to help he should have just HELPED.
But he did give the money, JimK did take it, and JimK now knows (and has suspected for quite a while) that the money came from Moore. This money practically saved JimK’s family, as JimK put it. He knows it came from Moore.
I would say that like it or not this seriously affects his ability to be properly critical of Moore, especially to the extent you should be on a website called MooreWatch.
Examples aside, that is the problem. JimK should choose which is moore important. Paying back the 12000 and restoring ALL credibility is one option. The other is admitting that the site, and his credibility on it are simply not worth the $12,000 he would have to pay back.
Only two options? This is wayyyyy too black-and-white.
What if it had been $1,000 instead of $12,000? You’re saying JimK’s site would be worth even less, because Moore would have “donated” less. You’re basically saying that Moore dictates the value of this site. That’s not very libertarian of you.
You seem to be avoiding the point that the money was given with an appearance of having no strings attached. JimK is not responsible for the strings that were hidden from him. Moore is. That is the real point.
Examples aside, that is the problem. JimK should choose which is moore important. Paying back the 12000 and restoring ALL credibility is one option. The other is admitting that the site, and his credibility on it are simply not worth the $12,000 he would have to pay back.
Only two options? This is wayyyyy too black-and-white.
What if it had been $1,000 instead of $12,000? You’re saying JimK’s site would be worth even less, because Moore would have “donated” less. You’re basically saying that Moore dictates the value of this site. That’s not very libertarian of you.
You seem to be avoiding the point that the money was given with an appearance of having no strings attached. JimK is not responsible for the strings that were hidden from him. Moore is. That is the real point.
If it was $1000, I am POSITIVE that JimK would be writing a cheque right now to return the money. And the point is whether JimK should return the money. Moore hiding his motives is another point altogether. Don’t confuse them.
Examples aside, that is the problem. JimK should choose which is moore important. Paying back the 12000 and restoring ALL credibility is one option. The other is admitting that the site, and his credibility on it are simply not worth the $12,000 he would have to pay back.
Only two options? This is wayyyyy too black-and-white.
What if it had been $1,000 instead of $12,000? You’re saying JimK’s site would be worth even less, because Moore would have “donated” less. You’re basically saying that Moore dictates the value of this site. That’s not very libertarian of you.
You seem to be avoiding the point that the money was given with an appearance of having no strings attached. JimK is not responsible for the strings that were hidden from him. Moore is. That is the real point.
If it was $1000, I am POSITIVE that JimK would be writing a cheque right now to return the money. And the point is whether JimK should return the money. Moore hiding his motives is another point altogether. Don’t confuse them.
You’re still arguing that the site is only worth $1000, because that’s what JimK “bought it back” for. Moore does not dictate the value of this site.
So why didn’t Moore simply say “We’re not friends but let me help, anyway, in the spirit of benevolent liberalism me and my fans endorse so that you too can see its not that bad, maybe come to understand the concept of welfare better.”
The value of this site is dictated by what JimK can afford to put into it. $1000 would be easy enough to cover, according to what I have read from JimK. Obviously $12,000 is not as easy to cover.
But maybe JimK stillw ouldnt pay it if it was $10,000, or $5000. I am speculating though that if it had been $1000, it would have been paid back already.
So no, you are wrong. I am not dictating the value of the site, just trying to estimate it what it’s worth to JimK.
The value of this site is dictated by what JimK can afford to put into it. $1000 would be easy enough to cover, according to what I have read from JimK. Obviously $12,000 is not as easy to cover.
But maybe JimK stillw ouldnt pay it if it was $10,000, or $5000. I am speculating though that if it had been $1000, it would have been paid back already.
You are still tying the value of this site to what you feel JimK has to “pay back”. That is inextricably tied to what Moore “donated” in the first place. I am telling you there is a complete separation between the value of this site and what Moore donates to JimK’s family. If Moore actually bought this site from JimK, or purchased his agreement to shut it down or change his stance, THEN (and only then) would we be talking about the value of this site. You are not demonstrating that any of that happened.
Didn’t see your edit until after I posted that last one.
Your “estimate” is based entirely on the “donation” that Moore made to JimK’s family. If a donation is something that doesn’t need to be paid back, how are you “estimating” any value of this site from it? Do you see any distinction between JimK’s family and this site’s operation? You’re arguing that a “donation” to his family has an impact on this site.
The credibility of JimK is is obviously tied to the value of this site, in some ways. Depends I guess on what you wish to define as value. At my company and in my current role, I define value in terms of the benefit or hinderance to the customer.
The benefit of this site is diminished as long as JimK doesnt pay back the money. It does not matter how he got the money, he now knows the source and that source is in conflict with the purpose of this site. His credibility is reduced by keeping the money.
Obviously JimK doesn’t feel the credibility loss is significant enough to care about. But I do. Then again I have never given the main page of this site much credibility in the first place. For me this site is really just these message boards, and thankfully guys like JimK and Lee rarely post here.
