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.
Here you’re completely wrong, and it shows that you don’t read the front site. JimK has stated that he would pay back the money if he could. I’m arguing (and several others are as well) that there is no ethical or credibility-related need to repay the money. Some people will suspect his credibility from now on, but it seems to me you always have, so what’s the diff? If you can demonstrate that he changed his behavior since finding out the source of the money, you can make a strong case that he was bought. If you cannot demonstrate same, then the case is actually being made against you.
If you’re going to criticize JimK, you had better start doing it in the front site. It’s cowardly to do it back here when you’re pretty confident that he won’t read it.
Jer Bu - 29 May 2007 11:26 AM
You’re arguing that a “donation” to his family has an impact on this site.
Of course it has an impact. This site requires money to run. Most, if not all of that money comes from JimK.
As I understand it, the site is funded mostly by advertisements and donation outlets linked to from this site. Moore “donated” the money to JimK’s family, not this site. You’re tying the two together when there is a compelling case that they shouldn’t be.
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.
If this was his only site, maybe. It is not, and his credibility regarding Moore isn’t damaged in our opinion. Moore followers however, would think that, but they really don’t come here anyway.
Jer Bu - 29 May 2007 11:24 AM
The benefit of this site is diminished as long as JimK doesnt pay back the money.
Opinion. Many of us do not see it that way. It only emphasizes Moore’s dirty tricks even moreso, IMO.
Jer Bu - 29 May 2007 11:24 AM
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.
He won’t watch Mikey’s every move, now that Moore pulled something especially underhanded? With logic like that, you don’t write computer programs for a living do you?
Jer Bu - 29 May 2007 11:24 AM
Obviously JimK doesn’t feel the credibility loss is significant enough to care about.
Opinion. He just values it less than his wife’s health. That is fine. Also, his wife and her health care were never in question. He would have shut down this site and others. Even so, we still might have donated to keep this site running so, Moore has nothing to do with it. Moore would love to see this site shut down. Why do you think he tried to shoot down JimK? So you are saying Moore is ok with this site now?
Jer Bu - 29 May 2007 11:24 AM
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.
We all like it. That is why if JimK said he needed the money for medical bills and he would have to shut it down, we would have ponied up to keep it running.
Here you’re completely wrong, and it shows that you don’t read the front site. JimK has stated that he would pay back the money if he could.
And why did he say he could not again? It’s too much money?
I’m arguing (and several others are as well) that there is no ethical or credibility-related need to repay the money.
And I am arguing that there are. That’s what makes it an arguement.
Some people will suspect his credibility from now on
Me for one.
But it seems to me you always have, so what’s the diff?
I said it has diminished. That doesn’t mean it was high in the first place, not does it mean that the level of credibility I give or gave him is the same as anyone else.
If you can demonstrate that he changed his behavior since finding out the source of the money, you can make a strong case that he was bought.
I guess we will see. Maybe he will be just as hard on him as ever. Maybe he will make a special effort now to counter the credibility loss he took by not repaying the money. There is lots to speculate about here.
If you’re going to criticize JimK, you had better start doing it in the front site. It’s cowardly to do it back here when you’re pretty confident that he won’t read it.
I’m sorry, would a personal email to JimK suffice?
As I understand it, the site is funded mostly by advertisements and donation outlets linked to from this site. Moore “donated” the money to JimK’s family, not this site. You’re tying the two together when there is a compelling case that they shouldn’t be.
This site is neither a corporation nor a non-profit, as far as I know. If I am mistaken and it is a corporation then Iw ould say you are correct on this point. But if it is privately run then finances of the site are directly linked to JimK’s finances.
Rapid: I agree with most of your post except for this part:
If this was his only site, maybe. It is not, and his credibility regarding Moore isn’t damaged in our opinion. Moore followers however, would think that, but they really don’t come here anyway.
I believe some non-moore fans, like myself, would still believe he should pay it back to restore some of the credibility.
Here you’re completely wrong, and it shows that you don’t read the front site. JimK has stated that he would pay back the money if he could.
And why did he say he could not again? It’s too much money?
Ask him. If he could pay it all back right now, would you argue that he didn’t need it in the first place? This is the kind of trap Moore set up for JimK. And you’re poking him with sticks while he’s stuck in it.
Considering that you’ve spent less than one sentence criticizing Moore for his exploitation of JimK and around a dozen or so posts criticizing JimK, I claim that you are essentially excusing Moore from his role in this. Moore’s role was that he initiated this, in case you’ve forgotten.
If you can demonstrate that he changed his behavior since finding out the source of the money, you can make a strong case that he was bought.
I guess we will see. Maybe he will be just as hard on him as ever. Maybe he will make a special effort now to counter the credibility loss he took by not repaying the money. There is lots to speculate about here.
Regarding JimK’s credibility, speculation is all you’ve got. I’m not going to argue any further with speculation. Let me know when you have something concrete.
If you’re going to criticize JimK, you had better start doing it in the front site. It’s cowardly to do it back here when you’re pretty confident that he won’t read it.
I’m sorry, would a personal email to JimK suffice?
That would probably be the best thing. The front page has moved on to other things, and you would be pretty off-topic to post in the currently active threads.
As I understand it, the site is funded mostly by advertisements and donation outlets linked to from this site. Moore “donated” the money to JimK’s family, not this site. You’re tying the two together when there is a compelling case that they shouldn’t be.
This site is neither a corporation nor a non-profit, as far as I know. If I am mistaken and it is a corporation then Iw ould say you are correct on this point. But if it is privately run then finances of the site are directly linked to JimK’s finances.
If it were a corporation or a non-profit, they would be separate by legal definition. I don’t require a legal definition, though, to say that JimK can keep his family and this hobby separate. Just like Applepie in the other thread, you’re beginning to selectively fall back on legal definitions. I’m not going to go through another 25 pages of crap to end up at the same place we started, and we’re heading in that direction. I won’t reply again unless you really come up with something new and interesting.
Rapid: I agree with your entire post except for this part:
If this was his only site, maybe. It is not, and his credibility regarding Moore isn’t damaged in our opinion. Moore followers however, would think that, but they really don’t come here anyway.
I believe some non-moore fans, like myself, would still believe he should pay it back to restore some of the credibility.
From the rules:
5. THIS ONE IS IMPORTANT:
Despite the fact that there is a forum dedicated to dissecting the works of Moore, you should in no way determine that the intent of this forum is to silence Moore. We have discussed the topic at length, and agree, that even if we somehow magically obtained the power to silence him, we would not. We support Moore’s First Amendment rights. He can say whatever he wishes, and likewise, so can we.
Tell me why he lost credibility taking money from an anonymous donor, who then fessed up to be Moore and used it as a gotcha in a movie? He put his family first. I am not sure why that would make him less credible about Moore, especially when Moore tried to use him. It may damage his credibility as far as being unbiased because I am sure he angry at being used. I don’t see him being more lenient with Moore. If you are talking about being less watchful, I have no idea why you would think that. JimK does not stay awake at night dreaming of ways to counter Moore’s BS, he runs a site where people are free to point out what Moore does.
If he felt like he owed Moore, he would shut the site down. He told us what happened, the money was handy and not “desperately needed” and there is some irony that Mikey’s donation helped with Insurance bills so he could keep the site running without our donations. Thanks Mikey. He helped all of us. Damn, I just lost my credibility.
Tell me why he lost credibility taking money from an anonymous donor, who then fessed up to be Moore and used it as a gotcha in a movie?
He didn’t lose credibility, in my eyes, from taking the money. He loses some, in my eyes, by not paying it back now that he knows Moore is the donor.
It may damage his credibility as far as being unbiased because I am sure he angry at being used.
I don’t see him being more lenient with Moore. If you are talking about being less watchful, I have no idea why you would think that. JimK does not stay awake at night dreaming of ways to counter Moore’s BS, he runs a site where people are free to point out what Moore does.
Well we will see if he is more lenient or not. And I do believe he stays up at night thinking about Moore. = )
I am going to be up all night wondering about your signature. I didn’t know (or maybe just didnt think about it) until2 minutes ago that cows can actually swim.
Ask him. If he could pay it all back right now, would you argue that he didn’t need it in the first place? This is the kind of trap Moore set up for JimK. And you’re poking him with sticks while he’s stuck in it.
I don’t think JimK can pay it all back right now. There are ways to pay it back other than a lump sum. I talked it over with a co-worker who said outright that he would donate the amount, over time, to something he cares about and that Moore doesn’t.
Considering that you’ve spent less than one sentence criticizing Moore for his exploitation of JimK and around a dozen or so posts criticizing JimK, I claim that you are essentially excusing Moore from his role in this. Moore’s role was that he initiated this, in case you’ve forgotten.
My feelings about Moores trap are not disputed here. I don’t need to speak to it more because we are ALL in agreement that the use of the anonymous donation in his movie and at the press conference, and virtually anywhere was wrong. That doesn’t change the fact that the money was donated and JimK knows who donated it.
I guess we will see. Maybe he will be just as hard on him as ever. Maybe he will make a special effort now to counter the credibility loss he took by not repaying the money. There is lots to speculate about here.
I agree.
Regarding JimK’s credibility, speculation is all you’ve got. I’m not going to argue any further with speculation. Let me know when you have something concrete.
The money coming from Moore is pretty concrete.
If it were a corporation or a non-profit, they would be separate by legal definition. I don’t require a legal definition, though, to say that JimK can keep his family and this hobby separate. Just like Applepie in the other thread, you’re beginning to selectively fall back on legal definitions. I’m not going to go through another 25 pages of crap to end up at the same place we started, and we’re heading in that direction. I won’t reply again unless you really come up with something new and interesting
Fact is that if Jim couldnt afford to run the site, because of personal obligations, he wouldnt run it and it would either go down or be funded by someone else. Its not a legal definition although the legal definition applies. I keep my home life and my hobbies seperate, but they are certainly tied together in terms of my money to support the hobby and my free time, both of which are key factors of my personal life.
I am going to be up all night wondering about your signature. I didn’t know (or maybe just didnt think about it) until2 minutes ago that cows can actually swim.
