Bitchin’ Camaro, Douchebag Columnist
Chuck Yarborough is a columnist for the Cleveland Plain Dealer. He’s also—and there’s no polite way to put this—a total fucking douchebag, a real dumbass moron. Here are his words on the $12,000 incident.
A guy named Jim Kenefick runs a Web site called Moorewatch.com that is devoted to ripping documentary maker Michael Moore, creator of “Fahrenheit 9/11” and a new anti-health care industry flick, “Sicko.” According to the story he told the New York Daily News, Kenefick ran into hefty financial problems after his wife became seriously ill. And, this being the age of blogging, he wrote about it. So an anonymous donor sent him a $12,000 check. Suspicious - I guess he gets those Internet offers from Paraguayan soybean exporters, too - he deposited the check in a separate account and waited for it to clear. When it did, he used it to pay bills. I know you’ve already figured out that the money came from Moore. What’s worse, Kenefick figured that out, too, and still spent it. For the record, the Daily News columnists who broke the story, Rush & Molloy, said their source was not Moore. Not that it would matter to Kenefick. “I’m not an idiot,” he said. “I know when to say yes to something, even if the string attached is obvious. What kind of moron turns down a free 12 grand?” Well, at least now we know the going rate for ethics, don’t we, Mr. Kenefick? [Emphasis added]
I see. Let’s see how this works. Jim is going through a period of tough financial times. He posts for recommendations on insurance programs, and settles on one which costs about $1,000 a month. Some anonymous benefactor sends him money. Jim is suspicious as hell of were it came from, but he’s also not retarded, and when someone gives you an anonymous gift, you don’t refuse to accept it because its provenance is not written in stone. We get large donations from various people every time we do our yearly server fees donation drive. One year we got $2,000 (maybe more) from a well-known television producer. We’ve gotten gifts of $500 and $1,000 a number of times. So it was perfectly within the realm of reality for some super-rich benefactor who wanted to remain anonymous to just send in a check. Ultimately all that Jim was really able to deduce is that there are a lot of these financial institutions in the ultra-rich area in which Mikey lives and works. This wasn’t evidence of anything, of course, just one bit of evidence that led to it coming from Moore. Nothing personal from Mikey stating that, despite our differences, he’d been fortunate in his life and would like to help someone out just because it was the right thing to do. Just the money.
As Jim said, when you’re in tough financial times, you’d have to be insane to turn down money on a hunch that it came from a disreputable source. So were his actions that unreasonable? Let me put it this way, I make more money than Jim and I *still* would have taken the check and bought a jetski with it or something.
Let’s look at it from the other perspective. Mikey sends in the check, and goes through a multi-step process to transfer funds from either his own personal account or his Dog Eat Dog films account. He needed something more indirect, and chose the check that Jim eventually received. No note from Mikey, asking to just keep this between us, nothing. So Jim, who really needed money at the time, took it, just as anyone of us in his situation would.
So, how does Old Cockbag at the plain dealer view Jm’s actions?
Well, at least now we know the going rate for ethics, don’t we, Mr. Kenefick?
Ethics? Listen, you donkey punch. You can scream ethics all you like, but where were the ethics attached to Mike’s gift if he expressly intended to exploit them later? Where were his ethics in using the emotionalism and stress of a man with a sick wife and a bad financial situation to really be in a position to refuse a $12,000 gift? Where were the ethics when he decided to make his “anonymous” gift public as part of a publicity campaign for his new movie? Those ethics violations don’t bother you, I guess, because you’re a boot-licking Michael Moore sycophant.
At least Jim got paid $12,000 dollars? How much of a check did you receive? Or did you lose it slowly, like so many in your position, who sell out just slowly enough to keep the pay raises coming? Tell us, what’s the going rate for ethics in journalism? I bet it’s a hell of a lot lower than what Jim received. “Oooh, look, a picture next to my byline! My Mom will think I’m so cool!”
Comments
Dude even looks like a total douche. This is just getting started. Wait until it releases in the US.
I know you’ve already figured out that the money came from Moore. What’s worse, Kenefick figured that out, too, and still spent it.
Ethics. Is that like the code of the West where you can’t shoot your grandmother? Or is like being a registered professional engineer where the state licensing board can revoke or suspend your license if you violate certain standards. Or maybe we’re talking about some legal code . . . or some religious code by which whole societies often function.
Or maybe more to the point, are we talking about the Code of Ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) where violating the code means someone might publicly chastise you in the daily mullet wrapper . . . even if they don’t understand the code and even if they violate the code themselves while chastising you?
I don’t know because I’m not a professional journalist since I make my money by charging customers obscene fees to make obscene profits since I am an obscene capitalist, you know . . . just keep a low profile to avoid being labeled with some derogatory term fabricated by some ethical journalist just oozing with journalistic integrity.
So, to start, let’s establish some facts. You can decide if they’re true or not.
First, what is a professional journalist? I would think that label would apply to someone engaged in making a living in the field of journalism. According to the SPJ, they have differ types of membership, specifically: 1) Professional 2) Retired 3) Associate 4) Household 5) College Student. Note that their qualification for Professional is someone who spends half their time working in the field of journalism or as a journalism educator. By “working” I assume they mean a journalist is paid for his efforts, but that isn’t clear . . . and it may not be important anyway.
In this case we have 3 guys involved . . . Michael Moore, Jim Kenefick with no L, and Chuck Yarborough. Who among this group is a professional journalist?
Well, I’d say Chuck Yarborough is one, and perhaps Michael Moore is one given the information he listed on his OFAC application to go to Cuba. But what about Jim? Is he a professional journalist subject to the SPJ Code? Since he doesn’t spend half his time engaged in journalistic endeavors, since he doesn’t make any substantial amount of money from writing (an assumption on my part), and since he’s not employed in the field of journalism I have to wonder if he would be accepted as a member of the SPJ? I don’t think he qualifies in any of the 5 categories.
But let’s say he did qualify and was subject to the code. What does the SPJ Code say? What are the standards?
Journalists should:
act independently. They should be free of any obligation of any interest other than the public’s right to know.
Specifically listed among the standards is this one:
Journalist should:
Refuse gifts, favors, fees, free travel and special treatment, and shun secondary employment, political involvement, public office and service in community organizations if they compromise journalistic integrity.
Note that last phrase . . . if they compromise journalistic integrity. That’s important.
The Code also says:
Journalist should:
avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived.
remain free of associations and activities that may compromise integrity or damage credibility.
disclose unavoidable conflicts.
And this one is important:
Journalists should:
test the accuracy of information from all sources and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error. Deliberate distortion is never permissible.
So the question becomes who among these three guys has violated the code?
Did Chuck Yarborough test the accuracy of his information from ALL sources and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error? In other words, did he contact Jim? Is he being completely truthful and open by implying Jim knew it was Moore who sent the check. After all, he did say Jim “figured it out” when the fact is Jim only suspected it was Moore. Moore proved the gift was anonymous when he phoned Jim revealing himself as the angel. I wonder what part of anonymous does Yarborough not understand? And is Yarborough distorting the truth? Is he doing it deliberately?
Did Michael Moore avoid a conflict of interest or compromise his integrity as a “journalist” by sending a political opponent money, then outing himself as the donor by revealing his deed in a commercial enterprise designed to produce a profit? Or is Moore really a journalist like his OFAC application states? Better yet, did Michael Moore disclose the potential conflict of interest when he donated money to a political opponent, especially if he planned to use it in the way he did?
As a blogger, is Jim Kenefick subject to the SPJ Code of Professional Ethics? If so, did he violate the Code by accepting an anonymous gift even though there was no way acceptance could have compromised his journalistic integrity since the gift was anonymous?
I’ll leave it for you folks to decide. (My personal opinion is Jim hasn’t violated anything.) I will say is this . . . far above any code of professional ethics is a moral code we should all live by. Playing a game of political gotcha like Moore did isn’t exactly my idea of being an altruistic, moral angel. Likewise, any so-called journalist that writes an article about this affair without criticizing Michael Moore has no integrity . . . journalistic or otherwise.
(And no, Chuck, starting a sentence with “What’s worse” doesn’t do it. Of course, to you, being the ethical professional journalist that you are, that should about cover it as far as Moore is concerned. If you want to criticize someone for unethical practices, start with yourself.)
Correction . . . Jim would qualify as an Associate if he wanted to belong to the organization. An Associate is one who “supports their mission.”
As I’ve mentioned elsewhere, Hugo Chavez happily takes dollars reeking of sulphur to help whomever he deems deserving of his welfare while the oil he sells is frying the earth and financing Bushilter’s war machinery which daily produces countless orphans before it kills them too.
Yet the lines of nobles dressed in colorful kaffiyehs and Che T-shirts forming to latch onto his poetic weenus with any orifice, if only for a brief rapturous moment, are endlessly long.
Why?
Because hypocrites love poetic weenuses.
I take umbrage at Chuck’sx insinuation that Paraguayan soybean exporters are somehow less ethical than perhaps Venezuelan ones.
Here’s the part I’ve been turning over and over in my head, and I just can’t find a worthwhile answer.
What difference does it make that Moore gave Jim a donation? What does it prove? I can’t think of a single thing about the American health care system that is manifested in giving someone money rather than force them to decide between managing an ill wife and running a website which is little more than a hobby and a public service. Unless the site is the primary source of Jim’s income (and it sounds like it was the opposite: Jim was the source of the prior host’s income), there’s no correlation at all between the two.
So, like Bowling for Columbine, you have a climax designed to try and make someone look like a jackass, without proving any larger point about the subject of the film (in this case, health care), and like Fahrenheit, you have yet another private citizen who is being used in Moore’s film without receiving direct consent.
Posted by MajoritySpeaker on 05/21 at 08:55 AM
Moore saw weakness in an enemy, and he exploited it...Just as JimK might have done if the situation were reversed, and he had the power and money to do so…
If JimK had done what Moore did, we wouldn’t be defending him and neither would you. I don’t suppose you have to play it fair, but you look like an asshole if you don’t.
This is first hand experience for all of us. It shows us, even on a personal level, how much the media will spin a situation in order to push an agenda.
This is first hand experience for all of us. It shows us, even on a personal level, how much the media will spin a situation in order to push an agenda.
I don’t know if its to push an agenda per se - more just to get a mountain of a story from a molehill of an event.
This entire thing makes me sick. To see someone I care about being raked over the coals just leaves a very bad taste in my mouth.
I think anyone who knows the entire situation of Jim’s wife and what she is and has been dealing with,the amount of emotional stress, the financial stress etc. if ANY OF YOU had been in his place and someone ANNONYMOUSLY offered you $12K to help out and you determied the money was legitimate and not a fraud would ahve taken it. Any one of you who says differently is lying out your asses.
The personal attacks on Jim and his wife have got to STOP! If you disagree with the fact he took the money fine, you are entitled to your opinion, however reading over the site and all the comments wishing Jim’s wife would die, asking for a doctor’s note of her illness etc are just WAY OVER THE LINE!
These are my friends. ANd before someone jumps on me, yes I have met them in real life. These are not “internet aquaintences”. These are two people I care a lot about and I worry alot about Jim’s wife and all she is dealing with.
These attacks on them need to stop.
ANd as far as all of the media picking up on this and NOT CONTACTING JIM to get his side, the real version of events, you are all a disgrace to your profession. Journalism 101...go to the source and get the FACTS. You don’t rehash what someone else has written and purporte that to be the facts. You need to fact check your information.
Shame on all of you for the personal attacks, insults, and lack of professionalism on behalf of the so-called journalists who are reporting this.
which is little more than a hobby and a public service.
Excellent point.
So, like Bowling for Columbine, you have a climax designed to try and make someone look like a jackass . . .
Exactly.
. . . without proving any larger point about the subject of the film (in this case, health care), and like Fahrenheit, you have yet another private citizen who is being used in Moore’s film without receiving direct consent.
Dead on.
The basic fact is that Moore got what he wanted, and JimK got screwed...In my opinion, neither man is ethical, but Moore is definitely smarter…
Smarter? Really? Interesting choice of words. I might have said Moore is definately more manipulative or using, or maybe calculating. But smarter?
When this is all said and done, I have to wonder . . . which guy would you trust with your credibility. Which one will you defend when it becomes obvious to more people JimK was used, not had.
ANd as far as all of the media picking up on this and NOT CONTACTING JIM to get his side, the real version of events, you are all a disgrace to your profession.
Amen.
But you know Janna . . . those unethical journalists do have “facts” to back them up. Do they care if those facts are true or not? Given recent events I’d say that hardly matters to them.
We just released a video episode on our online shows (www.HotRoast.com and www.moMoneyTV.com) regarding the topic of Moore’s “gift” to Jim, hopefully setting the record straight on the chain of events and some of the facts that seem to be eluding quite a few people - including the press - regarding the topic. The title is: “The Super Generous Michael Moore - Gift - Bribe - or SiCKO Marketing Hype?”. It can be viewed at:
http://www.momoneytv.com/vlog/momoney/20070521.html
Looking forward to a few more rants and raves...!
Nope...but now that it is no longer anonymous, it will affect his credibility from here on out…
I’m sure it will affect his credibility with some people. And I suppose some of them might believe they have just cause to feel that way. Others are going to base their opinion strictly on Jim’s politics . . . more to the point his anti-Moore position.
But taking the gift doesn’t have to affect his integrity. I seriously doubt JimK is going to lighten up Michael Moore unless he feels Moore has a good case on a certain issue.
Personally, I have to admit I just don’t get it. Someone needs to explain to me exactly why taking this gift is immoral, unethical or whatever. Maybe you can help me here, MajoritySpeaker? Anyone else can help me see the light, too?
Imagine a man is rescued from a burning building by someone he disagrees with politically. Because of the thick smoke from the fire the man is unable to see his rescuer. The rescuer could reveal his identity to the imperiled man but deliberately does not. A third party later reveals the rescuer’s identity. Those arguing that Jimk should pay the money back, or can no longer criticize Moore, must also believe that the man who was rescued, upon learning his rescuer’s identity, becomes obligated either to pay his rival for the rescue, or to return to the situation he was in before he was rescued. Granted, returning to a burning building is a much more extreme act than returning $12,000, but the point is the rescue does not invalidate past or future criticism of the rescuer by the man who was rescued.
There is absolutely nothing unethical about accepting help from someone you have criticized, nor is there anything unethical about expressing valid criticism of that person after the fact. Jimk would be a hypocrite if at anytime he had stated that it was wrong to accept money from anonymous donors, and he would be a liar if he claimed Moore had not helped him, but he has never done either of these things.
This site does not slander Moore as many posters have accused. Its authors expresses disagreement with his positions and criticize his work. The validity of those disagreements and criticisms is a topic of legitimate debate, but the fact that Jimk was helped by Moore has absolutely no bearing on the validity of Jimk’s criticisms of him. Or my criticism of Moore. Or Iraq. Or Nazis. Or even on the debate regarding what to do about the health care mess in the United States, or any of the other issues this recent influx of posters can’t seem to distinguish from the issue at hand.
Several recent newcomers have whined about being labeled “Moore-ons” or otherwise insulted. Granted there has been name calling for the sake of name calling on both sides, but for the most part those of you who have been labeled Moore-ons earned that title by saying incredibly stupid things. The vast majority of new posters over the last two days have submitted posts which reveal both a fundamental ignorance of the facts of the situation and an extreme degree of laziness which prevented them from learning the facts of the situation. That makes you Moore-ons.
Others have written posts which, regardless of the situation or context are just plain stupid. Eses, for example, claimed to be an unbiased observer who by skimming--skimming in his own words--the site had compiled enough information to begin handing out psychological diagnoses, not only to a single person, but to every person he had included in a group he had arbitrarily defined. That was stupid. Once again, shut up and go away.
May the Jim be with you.
es..."smarter"...and I wouldn’t trust either of them…
Is this an accurate quote from JimK?
“I’m not an idiot,” he said. “I know when to say yes to something, even if the string attached is obvious. What kind of moron turns down a free 12 grand?”
If it is accurate, and “the string attached” was “obvious” to JimK, then perhaps he wasn’t “had”....But then, if he knew something like this was coming, and he took the money anyway, how can he now cry about being “used” and “manipulated” by Moore?
Intentionally putting yourself in the position of possibly being the punchline of a Michael Moore Joke is not “smarter”...sorry.
And playing the victim card after saying some shit like that is just pathetic…
What a twisted little web you spin. It must be hard trying to twist this up to make an obvious victim into the bad guy. I love how you leave all common sense at the door when doing so. You are obviously biased.
Do yourself a favor and stop being a douche. Anyone can see that this was a set up by Moore and that Jim accepted the money without knowing who it was who sent it to him. He merely had a suspicion, which is not enough to go on. You would have done the same in his shoes. Look at how the events unfolded again and tell me that Jim really knew that there were strings attached to the 12K. I think the statement you are dwelling on is an after the fact statement. Don’t ignore the rest of the facts, please.
Majority Speaker, let’s be fair. That quote is taken out of context. Here is what Jim said taken in context:
I was still a bit skeptical, so I opened a whole new account at my bank, waited for it to clear, checked twice with bank personnel to make sure it wasn’t a scam, and waited a full 60 days before spending the money. At that time, I started drawing on it and paying the monthly premiums until it was gone. The whole time...from the moment I was first emailed (and I still have all the emails with full headers if it becomes necessary to publish them) I was convinced that it was Michael Moore behind it all.
I knew he was using me. I knew he would try to turn this to his advantage some day. That day may be upon us. I was just warned by someone in the know that Moore is about to drop the hammer on me.
Could this all be nonsense? Was it a truly anonymous person who was just trying to make my life easier after the hell we’ve been through the past 7 years? is it possible that Moore has nothing to do with this and never did?
Maybe.
Is it possible that Moore is going to try to make me into one of his little puppets and pull a “gotcha?” Yes. Yes it is. I wish I knew what the truth was. I don’t. I only know my part in it.
For the record: I’m not an idiot. I know when to say yes to something, even if the string attached is obvious.
Let’s be fair. Jim is saying he suspected it was Moore. There was a chance, however remote or likely, that it wasn’t Moore. Given his situation, he accepted knowing that IF it was Moore, he was going to be used.
You can take any sentence or any given number of lines from what Jim said and make it sound like he knew for certain it was Moore, but that’s not what he said.
You can take any sentence or any given number of lines from what Jim said and make it sound like he knew for certain it was Moore, but that’s not what he said.
And by the way, that’s exactly what Chuck Yarborough did.
Vermin, what an intelligent post! That one is a keeper.
Save it for the Church of Jim potluck dinner, Buzz.
MajoritySpeaker Wrote:
Is this an accurate quote from JimK?
“I’m not an idiot,” he said. “I know when to say yes to something, even if the string attached is obvious. What kind of moron turns down a free 12 grand?”
If it is accurate, and “the string attached” was “obvious” to JimK, then perhaps he wasn’t “had”....But then, if he knew something like this was coming, and he took the money anyway, how can he now cry about being “used” and “manipulated” by Moore?
See...this is a classic Moore tactic in my opinion. Take a quote that is out of context and turn it completely around to use it against the person.
If the person comes back and says “I did not say that”, you can come back and say exactly what you said above. That he said it...it is on Jim’s site...look at it.
But the point is that the quote is taken completely out of context. To cherry pick quotes and put them in an entirley different context is just one of the reasons I cannot trust what more says himself or his movies. He cannot get his point across unless he alters facts.
And yet, you seem to label these traits as “be smarter”. I would call it being “underhanded and manipulative”.
Jesus H. Criminy, I love all you guys. I’m feeling physically awful today, some sore throat/cold thing (and yes, I used my health insurance to see a doctor!) but I come here and see Lee taking it straight to these jerks, and y’all backing me up in the comments…
I swear if I could hug you or..you know, slip a hand on your asses in thanks I would. :)
Is it just me or is this getting a little too read in to? I can’t fully understand how what was intended to be an anonymous donation could be used as a way of manipulating someone or using someone. Isn’t it more of an attack on your credibility if you had known the source was someone you openly declare is your enemy and you take the money anyway?
Let’s say someone doesn’t like what I do and they start up a website to analyze my every move in an attempt to keep me honest. That man doesn’t become my enemy in my eyes, and should he have hardship in his life and I’m better off, of course I’d be willing to lend a hand and make sure things go more smoothly for him. But I wouldn’t want him to know it was me. I would want to know that my contributions were accepted and used to help him out rather than denied because of pride were he to know it was coming from me. That’s just logic to me. From the sounds of things, it was submitted anonymously to make sure that it was actually accepted and used to help. I mean, correct me if I’m wrong but, Jim was the one that decided to investigate the source which decided to remain anonymous. It wasn’t revealed by Moore. And had it been revealed by Moore at a press event or something, he would only be vilifying himself. It would be viewed as deceitful by the general public.
That’s just my take on it anyway. Seeing as you’re all a bunch of anti-Moore fanatics and I’m just neutral on the topic, I’m sure I’ll get blasted by some well-written flames laced with unnecessary expletives and using words like “donkey-punch” as an insulting name (which makes no sense, by the way.)
No one who would doubt Jim’s credibility over this would have given him any from the get-go, and if they say otherwise, they’re lying. End of discussion.
Nope. End of discussion. It’s not opinion, it’s reality. No. Shut up. Shut up. Yes, you, shut up. And especially you. You shut up to. That’s the way it is. Period, finito, <MCP>END OF LINE</MCP>
It wasn’t revealed by Moore.
I love it when they just suicide their IQs like that.
Hey. Dumbass. HE PUT IT IN HIS MOVIE.
You can apologize now.
I swear if I could hug you or..you know, slip a hand on your asses in thanks I would.
Just slip us some of that $12 like you once promised.
Hey, wait a minute… it was $12K?
I love it when they just suicide their IQs like that.
Hey. Dumbass. HE PUT IT IN HIS MOVIE.
You can apologize now.
Oh, I’m sorry that I haven’t seen the movie that hasn’t been released yet. And I love that it’s automatically a testament to my IQ because I was unaware of something that actually isn’t very widely written. I’ve read several articles regarding this issue and had to go to an Australian news source to find it mentioned.
Now, how about you not be a dick and inform me instead of calling me a dumbass and insulting my IQ? I bet you don’t know the color coding standards for a Cat5 patch cable but I’m not going to call you a moron for it.
I will, however, call you a prick for your response.
Majority Speaker:
If it is accurate, and “the string attached” was “obvious” to JimK, then perhaps he wasn’t “had”....But then, if he knew something like this was coming, and he took the money anyway, how can he now cry about being “used” and “manipulated” by Moore?
Here’s a hint… HE’S NOT crying about it. He made the point that the contribution would probably be used as some sort of “gotcha” tactic in his film and LO AND BEHOLD… it’s used as a “gotcha” tactic in his film. It’s not whining about being victimized, his so-called “victimization” is not the issue. It’s simply making the point that people who think there was any altruism behind this gift can very plainly see that the only true motive was the manipulation of THE TRUTH (not JimK or his wife, but THE TRUTH) when presenting the story in his film.
So, explain the “context” here to me?....because these don’t sound like the words of a victim.
You were the one who said he was crying victim, genius. Stop arguing against your own points if you wish to be taken seriously.
I wish I could sympathize with him, but I think his credibility is shot....He asked for it, he got it....plain and simple.
Please explain the impact this contribution is supposed to have on his credibility.
The Dragon:
I mean, correct me if I’m wrong but, Jim was the one that decided to investigate the source which decided to remain anonymous.
Okay. You’re wrong. Try reading the blog.
It wasn’t revealed by Moore.
You’re wrong again. It’s in his film.
Seeing as you’re all a bunch of anti-Moore fanatics and I’m just neutral on the topic, I’m sure I’ll get blasted by some well-written flames laced with unnecessary expletives and using words like “donkey-punch” as an insulting name
How do you intend to respond to this now that your absurd mischaracterization has been blown out of the water? I apologize for not playing towards your martyr complex but hopefully some real discussion can be salvaged.
Oh, I’m sorry that I haven’t seen the movie that hasn’t been released yet
It has been shown at Cannes though, where people in the media have seen it, and written articles about it and that the movie ends with jimk. Moore is even quoted as saying he put it in and its something that jimk mentioned directly A few posts down
Inability to read is a testament to your low IQ.
The Dragon, again:
Oh, I’m sorry that I haven’t seen the movie that hasn’t been released yet. And I love that it’s automatically a testament to my IQ because I was unaware of something that actually isn’t very widely written.
It was written in this blog. And I assume you’re aware of this blog, since you are posting in this blog. Therefore, I submit that you went searching too far and wide for information that was much more easily available to you right here.
Now, how about you not be a dick and inform me instead of calling me a dumbass and insulting my IQ? I bet you don’t know the color coding standards for a Cat5 patch cable but I’m not going to call you a moron for it.
I will, however, call you a prick for your response.
Yeah, he should follow your example for grace and civility, like your gem quoted in my previous post.
Oh, I’m sorry that I haven’t seen the movie that hasn’t been released yet.
How about reading pretty much any of the posts on this site in the last forty-eight hours? Y’know, the ones where it says “Moore revealed it in a press conference” and “Moore put it in his movie”. That’s why you’re a dumbass. Dumbass.
And yet, I don’t see an apology for your ranting and raving and being completely and utterly wrong. Just some whining about my being a prick, as if that removes the fact that you were wrong. Even if I was a prick to you, you could apologize to everyone else, and especially to Jim, for jumping on him in complete and total ignorance in the face of facts. But you won’t, you’ll barely even make mention of the reality of the situation, you’ll just whine and snap like a retarded puppy who’s been caught pissing on the carpet.
This is me, bending your intellectual honesty over and fucking it hard up the ass. Unnnnh. Unh, oh yeah, baby. You’ve been fucked plenty before, I can see, you take it like a pro.
wh/o - o - wh/gr - b - wh/b - gr - wh/br - br
for flip switch o and g pair on one side.
“Could this all be nonsense? Was it a truly anonymous person who was just trying to make my life easier after the hell we’ve been through the past 7 years? is it possible that Moore has nothing to do with this and never did?
Maybe.
Is it possible that Moore is going to try to make me into one of his little puppets and pull a “gotcha?” Yes. Yes it is. I wish I knew what the truth was. I don’t. I only know my part in it.”
You know what you just did, Majority? You did the same thing Yarborough did. Read it again, then think about it. Jim is decribing the different phases he went through trying to figure this out. At one point he is “convinced”, but there remains doubt.
There is one thing you seem to be deliberately or selectively culling from a certain reality that you cannot honestly and intellectually reconcile because you have not asked yourself this question:
Exactly how was Jim to KNOW (not guess . . . not think . . . not speculate . . . not suppose . . . not assume . . . not anything else) this money came from Moore? What evidence did Jim have to prove it was from Moore? There was no way for him to be 100% sure. There remained the chance it came from elsewhere. You can pretend that possibility didn’t exist, but that ain’t exactly science, is it?
Combine this with the simple unfolding of events . . . Moore finally confirmed what Jim suspected. Why would Moore have to confirm a known true fact? Did Moore mean for Jim to know before hand?
I’ll ask you the same question I have for Chuck Yarborough . . . what part of anonymous do you know understand.
Hindsight is 20/20 . . . today, you can assign any probablity you want to Jim’s suspicions. How uncertain was he at the time in question? What degree of uncertainy did he have? Better yet, what degree of certainty did Jim have . . . was it 50-50 or 75-25 or 90-10 or 99-1.
The most ludicrous assumption you’re making is that the check could not have possibly come from anyone else. How lame is that?
Man, would I hate to have you on a jury while standing trial for some crime I didn’t commit. You’re doing the same thing others have done here the last few days . . . holding a kangaroo court.
And all the while you still haven’t explained exactly why taking the gift was immoral, illegal, unethical, or whatever.
What evidence did Jim have to prove it was from Moore?
You forget, even if there was evidence, it would have been wrong of him to look for it/at it/acknowledge it. He was supposed to just trot down to the bank and cash it, never giving it another thought. Apparently.
w0rf:
Yeah, he should follow your example for grace and civility, like your gem quoted in my previous post.
He’s proving my point, and continues to prove it with each post he posts.
Yes, I apologize that I wasn’t fully informed.
Rann:
and especially to Jim, for jumping on him in complete and total ignorance in the face of facts.
I didn’t jump on Jim, I put the facts as I had them in my head out for response. I did say, “Correct me if I’m wrong” and I stand corrected and am more informed on the topic now. I thank those of you who put it in more informative words than insulting words.
biafra:
wh/o - o - wh/gr - b - wh/b - gr - wh/br - brfor flip switch o and g pair on one side.
Correct! Gold star!
And I thank you for having the grace and civility not to assume that people who did not agree with your take could only express themselves with drooling vitriol.
Which is to say, I don’t thank you at all.
And I thank you for having the grace and civility not to assume that people who did not agree with your take could only express themselves with drooling vitriol.
I made an assumption based on the trend of the thread. I did say they’d be well-worded, though, and for the most part I was right. Do I get a point for that?
If you feel you can rationalize being a prick towards other people, you go ahead and keep trying. Don’t expect to find a way to earn any “points” from such rationalization, however.
I don’t hold it against you that you got a lot of basic facts dead-ass wrong, because you conceded the points when the facts were given to you. But don’t expect me to validate your attitude.
If you feel you can rationalize being a prick towards other people, you go ahead and keep trying. Don’t expect to find a way to earn any “points” from such rationalization, however.
Honestly speaking, I wasn’t really being a prick, I was stating a fact. Observing this community one comes to two conclusions.
1) These guys HATE what Michael Moore does.
2) The contributors and commenters flat-out flame and name-call those that disagree with them. This main post being a perfect example.
He’s also—and there’s no polite way to put this—a total fucking douchebag, a real dumbass moron.
So, how does Old Cockbag at the plain dealer view Jm’s actions?
Listen, you donkey punch.
Dakrat:
Dude even looks like a total douche.
Rann:
Hey. Dumbass. HE PUT IT IN HIS MOVIE.
Rann again:
That’s why you’re a dumbass. Dumbass.
Rann again:
This is me, bending your intellectual honesty over and fucking it hard up the ass. Unnnnh. Unh, oh yeah, baby. You’ve been fucked plenty before, I can see, you take it like a pro.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m all about free speech, and you can say whatever you like and if it bothers me that much, I’ll just stop listening. *shrug* There’s plenty of internet to keep me busy elsewhere. But at a certain point, things go from debate to flame war, everyone loses in a flame war and it becomes harder to pick out the important points. I apologize for generalizing the visitors of this site in to that group, I was merely preparing myself for the worst and expressing my confusion over using “donkey punch” as an insult.
Don’t expect to find a way to earn any “points” from such rationalization, however.
It was a joke. That’s me saying, “I’m not angry at anyone, I’ve been given the facts that I was missing, let’s go on about our lives.”
I knew he would try to turn this to his advantage some day.
And he did. What’s your point?
You do have to admit that putting Jim in the movie was very on topic. He was having problems with the poor American health-care system. I don’t care who you talk to, that’s not spin, the American health-care system really isn’t very good.
But on the same token, the universal health-care in canada isn’t as glorious as people make it out to be, either.
Anyway, wrong place for that discussion.
TheDragon:
Honestly speaking, I wasn’t really being a prick, I was stating a fact.
Honestly speaking, you were. Your so-called “observations” are largely comprised of sarcastic diatribes posted in advance of what you assumed to be your forthcoming victimization.
The contributors and commenters flat-out flame and name-call those that disagree with them.
And notice that I neither denounced that as untrue nor came up with some excuse as to why it was okay. I think the truth can be delivered without puerile name-calling. I also think that your posts are the pot calling the kettle black.
MajoritySpeaker:
This is the “victim” crying:
Actually, it’s not. A little reading comprehension might clarify that for you a bit. It might also keep you from contradicting yourself.
You do have to admit that putting Jim in the movie was very on topic.
You’re absolutely right, but that could have been accomplished without the whole anonymous donor charade.
You do have to admit that putting Jim in the movie was very on topic. He was having problems with the poor American health-care system.
No, he wasn’t. He was having trouble paying for the insurance that dramatically reduces his health care costs, while at the same time maintaining a website AS A HOBBY AND A PUBLIC SERVICE. Make no mistake, the choice of which Michael relieved him was BETWEEN HIS WIFE AND A HOBBY. The loss of a website, as much as we all benefit intrinsically from it, is not some world-shattering event.
I don’t care who you talk to, that’s not spin, the American health-care system really isn’t very good.
He and his wife got every ounce of care that they required. His only problem was debt. And Michael did not even relieve his debt (directly), only the insurance payments; Jim is still responsible for his co-payments. Contributing to his insurance payments DEMONSTRATES NOTHING ABOUT THE STATE OF AMERICAN HEALTH CARE.
Majority, all I garner from that is Jim going back and forth in his head about the situation. I would done the same. It probably came from Moore . . . yes, I’m sure it came from Moore . . . but, it could have come from someone else . . . but . . . and so on.
At the time, it was not unreasonable to be in doubt one way or another. The check could have come from anyone. That it likely came from Moore hardly establishes origin beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Yawn… your inventing magical scores in your head based on your unstated subjective bullshit interests no one but yourself.
Now watch this drive.
RSS (Subscribe)
Since when does an editor allow one of his reporters criticise the people he’s writing about personally other than the editorial page? This is not reporting, the facts are wrong, and the personal opinion/ message to JimK makes this an editorial hit piece.
Someone should call this guy and ask him how he ever got this under the radar of his editor.
(216) 999-4534
or better yet, his editor:
Douglas C. Clifton
Editor
Phone: 216.999.4123
[email protected]