Jim Kenefick and Moorewatch as presented by Michael Moore in Sicko
Well, at least now we'll all know exactly how Mikey presents this dumb story, eh? The video below requires Flash.
Let's break it down, shall we?
First of all, love the fake sotto voce delivery. My God that's pretentious. I also love the lead-in to the segment about me and this site; Moore and I are mortal enemies, just like Castro and America, but look! Enemies can be so wonderful to each other! Isn't Michael Moore a really great human being?
He opens the segment calling us "the biggest anti-Michael Moore website on the internet." Can I quote you, Mike? Would you mind if I put that on a tee shirt? He goes on to imply that the site was absolutely shutting down, when the fact is I said it was a very likely possibility, but that we could try to save it by getting some cash together quickly. It's a small detail, but like everything with Michael, the devil is always in how he presents these little things.
SIDEBAR - This was the infamous (to long-time readers) "lightning strike" incident which we found out later only kind-of happened. Remember, at the time I still trusted our server provider (JT Thompson of E-places.net) and considered him a friend. Little did I know that he was using the fact that lightning did indeed strike the data center as a way to bilk me (and you) out of a couple thousand more dollars. As it happened, the lightning strike did no damage whatsoever. It happened, but it was not the cause of the server crashing. That was ALL manufactured by the con man (JT Thompson of E-places.net) who was providing our service at the time.
He goes on to say the site was in trouble "because his wife was ill, and they could no longer afford to pay for her health insurance." Now, that's a half-truth at best. The insurance was in place for over a year. Come hell or high water I was going to cover that. If it meant losing the site and anything else we could trim, so be it. But it wasn't just the health insurance. It was JT's server scam, our mortgage increase, and an increase in premiums for both health and auto insurance all at the same time that led us to a minor crisis. Of all those things, the most immediate and the easiest to lose was the dedicated server.
Let me make one thing perfectly clear: Long before Moore even considered sending a check, you, the readers of Moorewatch, as well as the readers of Right Thoughts and Right Thinking, banded together and you saved these sites. You did it, not Michael. His money never arrived until long after the sites were safely up and running again. I even said to the person who emailed me, this Google Ghost named "Nora LaVelle," that the sites were all taken care of for the moment, and she asked if I had any other ongoing expenses. That's when I told "her" about the insurance premiums and "she" said that my "angel" wanted to help.
Moving on, Moore says that "He was faced with a choice of either keep attacking me, or pay for his wife's health. Fortunately, he chose his wife" Of course I did. What a lovely implication that is, eh? It subtly implies that there may have been a decision at all to be made. It implies that I might be the kind of person who would choose to rant about Michael Moore and let my wife suffer.
That Moore, he sure is a nice guy, huh? Altruistic to the core.
This moment in the film is accompanied by one of Michael's misleading tricks; he highlights the phrase "The sites are likely going down." What he doesn't tell you is that was from a whole other point in history. That blog post was NOT from the same time period as the first one he showed. It was from the period of time when we found out that JT Thompson was a con man and that he was not paying his bills, and that all of his customers were about to be terminated due to non-payment. If you stop the clip and read the surrounding text, you can see the context...something that theater-goers will never be able to do.
It's another half-truth editing trick by Moore. Call it the "two ties" moment from Bowling For Columbine, where Moore edited together two completely different speeches to make Charleton Heston look like an uncaring monster.
He goes on to discuss how I should be able to "Have health insurance and exercise his First Amendment right to run me into the ground." This is just a cornucopia of various posts from all different times. He goes back to December 2004, jumps to 2006, then back to 2004...it's all edited with the Ken Burns motion technique and much of the text obscured by a dark filter with certain key phrases highlighted. Then he highlights a post I made on 4/16/2004. It was in response to one of "Mike's Messages." In that message, he was running down a few civilian contractors that had just been brutally murderered in Iraq. I was disgusted by his reaction then and I an just as disgusted by it now.
That's the context of me saying "Dear Michael, Fuck you." Again, something that theater-goers will never, ever be able to discern from the brief, carefully presented clips in the film. All it does is serve to make me look, as he did to the Bunny Lady and many others, like an unhinged loon.
He then shows the actual check/money order thing he sent - complete with our names on display. Fair enough. I'm not exactly hiding under a rock here. he then says that he sent it anonymously. Anonymous except for that part where it's in the movie. Oops!
The clip continues to show my thanking the "anonymous" guardian angel, and he closes by saying "His wife got better and his website is still going strong." Another misleading statement. My wife is getting better. There is a difference, but it's a difference that Moore could not care less about. He never asked, personally or through a representative, about my wife's current health. He just made it up.
The line "and his website is still going strong" comes over a tight shot of a line from that post about his reaction to the deaths of the civilian contractors in Iraq. Leaving the viewers with that last impression that I'm the most ungrateful bastard who ever lived.
Of course the facts are that those words were written TWO YEARS before Michael sent that check.
So what can we learn from all of this? Well, nothing new, unfortunately. We learn that Michael Moore is still using editing tricks, time compression and juxtaposition to create the emotional reactions that he wants you to have. Reactions that you might not have if you were presented with all the facts accurately and in chronological order. Some important things to remember as we go forward:
1. Michael Moore did not save this site. You did. The readers, commenters and supporters of this and our other sites saved our bacon, as you have many times over the years. You are without a doubt the best bunch a blogger could ask for as readers, and if I don't say it enough, please know that I an eternally grateful for each and every one of you.
2. This money helped us a great deal. It took us from sitting behind the eight ball to balancing on top of the eight ball. For that my wife and I will always be grateful. No matter what other people say, no matter what happens in the future, Donna and I can say without reservation that Michael Moore helped us. I don't think it's unreasonable to discuss why he decided to do it in this manner, and I would hope that anyone reading this could understand that.
3. Sometimes, Mike just makes things up because it makes his narrative flow better. Michael's defense for going to Cuba proper is that his trip was journalistic in nature. You know what? I agree. I actually agree that, regardless of his intent to glamorize Cuban health care, he was allegedly making a documentary about health care. Therefore it seems reasonable and this non-lawyer, within the law to visit Cuba for the purposes of journalism. Such exceptions are granted to journalists all the time.
However, this also means that now Michael has stated for the public record that Sicko is a work of journalism. Therefore, Sicko must be held to higher standards than Moore's previous works, which he himself categorized as entertainment. Making up little white lies and telling half-truths is not what a documentary film-maker or a journalist should be doing. Using deceptive editing tricks, emotionally charged rhetoric and using juxstaposition to craft a reaction is not what a documentary film-maker or a journalist should be doing.
Ultimately what we should all take away from this is two simple words:
Comments
Good post Jim . . . one of your best.
I just noticed that nowhere in that clip did he actually mention “Moorewatch” or “Jim Kenefick”, nor display them in a fashion that moviegoers are actually likely to catch and remember. Without that, many who might have come here to see JimK’s side of the story will probably not go to the trouble to try to find it. I have no doubt that was deliberate. From now on, anybody who comes here and claims that Moore did Jim a favor by publicizing his site can be shown--with Moore’s own work--to be full of crap.
What a missed opportunity!!!
Mike had a story that, if told straight (is he capable?) or even not told at all, would aid his take on the situation in American health care. It would even make him look like a good guy to friends and foe alike.
What does he do. He messes with it.
He takes a win win, Mike the humanitarian helping his enemies and turns it into a lose lose, Mike the ego maniac, using a bad situation to make himself look good, then bragging about it whilst at the same time portraying himself as a victim. Not very altruistic is it Mike?
Again I say. What a missed opportunity!!!
Well, Boxers, we might at least agree on one thing . . . Moore isn’t as smart as some people think.
Well, now that we know how he played it, did we expect anything less?
And of the tools that keep showing up… Did we expect anything more?
Seriously, Amazed and PutFood, you should both check out previous postings, where your comments might be more on-topic. Though Jim’s purported “hypocrisy” has been discussed ad nauseum, perhaps one of you has something fresh and insightful to add. Try here, here, or here. Also, this one was rather spirited.
I really think it’s stupid and pitiful to devote your life to critisizing Mr Moore. Face it: he is the one man who has begun to restore respect for the US in the world. Showing the bad sides of a society is the first step to recovering health, I mean, your stupid weapon laws, your disgraceful wars on poor nations, your dimwit president, for example do not impresss the world.
Lars,
It is ironic that you consider it to be important to show the bad sides of a society in order to improve it, yet you in the same post say that its stupid and pitiful to criticise Moore. Isn’t that just JimK’s attempt to restore respect for Michael Moore from some of his audiance?
The issue isn’t the questions Moore raises, its that he raises them with falsehoods. Take Fahrenheit 9/11, which focused in large part on Bush. It would be EASY to make a movie criticising bush legitimately, however he mislead, misrepresented, and outright falsified parts of that movie rather than simply criticised Bush with the facts. That hurts dialogue in general to then have people further debating this administration using evidence that doesn’t exist.
Honestly, if you feel the world has great respect for Moore, and the fabrications he’s created, then I’m not sure thats a value structure for the rest of the world I’d want respect from. Granted, I also don’t think that the stance of the rest of the world is accurately summed up there, as most people I’ve met, either tourists here or those I’ve met while overseas, are usually smart enough to tell the difference between a particular administration and the people of a nation themselves.
Of course, its hard to raise particular nation-based questions without knowing the country you’re from, as well.
I think you didn’t read the tone involved in where he used the term mortal enemies referring to the pretentious tone of the video. As for “You seem like the type of asshole that would let his wife die rather than take money from someone you devoted you devoted your time and money to, bashing them on the internet.”
He’s directly said that he would never do that. Directly said that. In fact, that he used the money rather indicates that your claim is wrong. Further, the whole reason that he got ANY help from Moore was that he ran this site. If he didn’t, Moore wouldn’t have helped him because it wouldn’t have made for a good story for the movie. So there’s no irony at all. It’d be irony if Moore donated money without KNOWING who was getting it and it TURNED OUT to be a critic of his.
See? Look at how many things the Moore-ons get wrong in one little drive-by hate post. THAT’s the crap Moore gets away with throughout every film, because most people don’t have a venue to defend the truth.
Trolls, you are flat-out fucking WRONG about your assumptions, but I don’t people like you to stick around long enough to *ask* me what is going on instead of TELLLING me how my life is.
Onesies are pathetic.
Honestly who devotes a website as a ways and means of taunting micheal moore.
Who registers on a site they think is a waste of time just to be a total cock and call people names?
Oh. You do.
To be fair, the last guy was three. Just, in a row.
What is your suggestion otherwise? Shut down the site, and spit in the faces of everyone who has contributed financially here as well?
He’s thanked Moore for the money. That does not, however, mean that he may no longer criticise Moore’s filmmaking techniques, nor does it remove Moore’s treatment of helping JimK’s wife as being a matter of question, as Moore has used that to suit his own ends as well.
His wife wouldn’t have died, taking the money or not, but he’s stated that the money helped ease the strain greatly. And he cashed it after checking it was legitamate, and acting on good faith re: it. It was then publicly revealed to have been from Moore. The only arrangement at the time was that the money was from an unnamed source to help him, there was no agreement that he couldn’t be critical of Moore afterward, especially as he didn’t know it was from Moore. Further, if he DID return the money, do you then believe that Michael Moore would remove the section talking about it from Sicko? Or would Moore leave it in even if the money had been returned? Why is it that JimK is determined to be dishonest for having kept the money, when Moore claims he acted altruistically and yet has used the donation for his own gain by putting it in the movie?
Finally, how can you call ANYONE hateful when you wish death upon JimK’s wife for the views of JimK? Would you consider it hateful for me to say that I wished your family was dead because you’re an internet troll and for the way you’ve lashed out at JimK? How do you ignore the hypocracy of attacking someone else with such visciousness with the claim that they are filled with hate?
I’ve seen sicko. I’m british i emigrated to canada, and have lived peridoically through work commitments in the US. And ive often heard first hand horror stories about US health care, from american citizens. The sway away from universal health care in the US has always perplexed me. The more ive thought about it the more its made absolutley no sense to me. But then maybe its because i dont know any better?
I dont agree with all of moores views, but i dont agree with all of anyones views. I just do the best i can with the things i see as i go along in life. Takes what makes sense to me and try to understand what doesnt. An american friend of mine made an argument recently saying if there was universal health care in the US it would buckle under the lawsuits. Its funny how the rest of the world (and call it predjudice if you must) joke about the sue happy americans. But it is a joke to some degree type in class action law suit to your favorite search engine.
To the author of the site. You know alot of people come on here and say you’re an ungrateful bastard. I dont think you’re ungrateful i think you stand for your beleifs and i commend you for that. And sir i dont agree with eveything you say, but thats the Maybe Mr Moore does too, maybe he doesnt maybe he’s spiteful and this was his ultimate act of bringing wrath upon you. I dont know the man so its hard to conclude from having seeing a few of his documentaries i know anything about him. Maybe he’s passionate about getting people talking about problems that could be fixed...and maybe at times he over steps the line, from a certain point of view
dvsone, from an American stance.... we joke about the suehappy nature as well to an extent.... but we’re unfortunitly stuck with it as well. I’ve had to explain stuff to several friends when they’ve visited the U.S. on why some things are handled the way they are specifically because of the danger of law suits. I don’t think you’ll find many americans that aren’t aware of how ridiculous some of the lawsuits that happen in the U.S. are. Every tool can be abused.
Let me be the first to say thanks for bringing a differing viewpoint and opinion into this and still being civil about it though. Just in case more trolling happens before the morning really begins with the other regular commenters.
I removed a comment that was extremely nasty...just so everyone knows.
I removed a comment that was extremely nasty...just so everyone knows.
Well that’s the tolerant compassionate left always willing to listen to other viewpoints and respect them.
First, you are an ungrateful bastard.
First, you’re wrong.
Second, if you didnt need the money, return it.
Second, returning a gift would seem to me like a sign of ungratefulness. Make up your mind.
And if you received so much money that you didnt need it to meet your wifes expenses.
He wasn’t asking for money to meet his wife’s expenses.
Third, If the money really didnt help you, why not prove it by saying how much money was given to you to show that 12k was an insignificant amount. Or are you using one of Michael Moore’s editing tricks to conveniently omit that information.
Oh, snap! You are so clever! Except, not. Read the post again. Read the ACTUAL REASONS that the site was teetering on the brink. Read the FACT that it was TWO YEARS before Moore had a lackey contact the site.
Hell, just read. It will improve your standing by an order of magnitude.
You could have easily have said thank you to Moore while still disagreeing with the way he makes his makes films.
It’s so easy to say, that HE ALREADY SAID IT MULTIPLE TIMES. Try to keep up.
It is understandable though seeing as this “gift” that no doubt helped you tremendously will hang over your every keystroke while you proceed to try and work your brain around a way to bash/slander that same man you devoted an entire website too.
Slander is based on falsehoods. The criticisms about Moore’s films are generally accurate, certainly far closer to The Truth (tm) than his films themselves.
Iam with the last post… simply write him a thank you note.
I’ll say it again. HE. DID.
Honestly who devotes a website as a ways and means of taunting micheal moore.
Who devotes a lifetime to creating a website and a series of films that distort the truth to advance a political agenda? I’ll wait for you to go and post this same question at michaelmoore.com. More to the point, I will wait for michaelmoore.com to reopen their site to forums or even comments in order to entertain direct criticism, which hasn’t been done in several YEARS. You may not like what Jim has to say but at least he’s man enough to give you the opportunity to tell him to his (virtual) face.
Not to mention you talk about having high health insurance premiums only to turn around and knock a movie he created showing a better method of health care that wouldn’t give you those high premiums that got you in your “crisis”.
Pay better attention. Jim’s insurance coverage is the best that his plan offers, at a LOWER premium than what he was paying before.
AND THE PREMIUMS DID NOT PUT HIM IN THE CRISIS TO BEGIN WITH!
You seem like the type of asshole that would let his wife die rather than take money from someone you devoted you devoted your time and money to, bashing them on the internet.
Except reality is just the opposite, genius.
It is amazing how you even break down where he says “His wife is better” and you say NO NO, “She is getting better”.
Yeah, it’s called a long-term illness, genius. When you get a cold, you take a Z-pack for a week. When you get cancer, you take chemo treatments for months, spend even more months in recovery, and if you’re lucky, it’s still gone five years later. THAT’S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BETTER AND GETTING BETTER. And when you have a neurological disorder that requires long-term treatment, you are GETTING BETTER, but you’re NOT THERE YET.
Your so angry you try and find stupid things that don’t even make sense…
He wouldn’t have to try very hard, he could just read your post. Talk about a stupid thing that doesn’t even make sense…
But I can see how your so angry, seeing as your “mortal enemy” ( LOL ) saved your wifes life.
How dramatic. “Mortal enemy”. “Saved her life”. Did you watch a Lifetime Original Movie before crafting this Pulitzer-winning post?
First of all, I want to apologize for my absense. I’ve been unbelievably busy.
Next, to dvsone;
And ive often heard first hand horror stories about US health care, from american citizens.
I don’t doubt that at all. Please recognize, however, that we’ve heard at least as many horror stories from the UK, Canada and other nations that host socialized health care systems.
But then, everyone likes to bitch. It’s part of the human condition, I think.
The sway away from universal health care in the US has always perplexed me. The more ive thought about it the more its made absolutley no sense to me. But then maybe its because i dont know any better?
I would say that’s a fair assessment. The nature of the problems in compared healthcare systems (semi-capitalist and socialized) is not something most people have a great degree of information on. I know I need to learn quite a bit more, myself, before I can fully understand it as well as some of the members here do. (but I’m learning.)
I can tell you that, the more I learn, the more I understand what a complete disaster socializing has the potential to be.
I dont agree with all of moores views, but i dont agree with all of anyones views.
Now that is easily one of the most sensible and admirable things I’ve ever heard here. Moreso, it is absolutely more sensible than anything you could ever hope to hear from the mooreons who do drive-bys, here. Kudos for so brilliantly distinguishing yourself from them with a single sentence.
Its funny how the rest of the world (and call it predjudice if you must) joke about the sue happy americans.
I wish I could joke about it, but I just don’t find it remotely funny. It’s the trivial, ever-present litigation in this country that is the real cause of our health care woes.
I haven’t seen “Sicko” yet, but I really doubt Moore even addresses this point. To do so would offer people a glimpse of the real problems, and ideas for the real solution; something Moore absolutely does not want, as it would only serve to detract from his argument for sosialization.
I dont think you’re ungrateful i think you stand for your beleifs and i commend you for that.
I can’t speak for Jim, of course… but for myself, I thank you for being both gracious and fair-minded.
I tell you, you’re really on a roll when it comes to distinguishing yourself from the mooreons. (especially the mind-bogglingly vapid ones that have trolled here in the last day or so.)
maybe he’s spiteful and this was his ultimate act of bringing wrath upon you.
Honestly, dvsone, I don’t think that’s even in question, anymore. No “maybe” about it. Moore’s transparency here is clear to anyone who isn’t completely blinded by partisan hatred and rage-driven denial.
Of course this was a “gotcha!”. You really have to be as borderline-retarded as “jesuslopezviejo”, “lars hellvig”, “supafaith”, “amazed” or “putfoodonyourfamily” to not see or admit it.
(Hrmmm… I wonder how many of those names hail from identical IP’s?)
As for the above-mentioned mindless trolls,
I have a question, in all honesty; (I know, that’s a bit much to ask of you.)
Do you really not understand how everything you’ve said is 100% wrong?
Really… are you so incredibly idiotic, so unbelievably thick, so droolingly, knuckle-draggingly backward and stupid that you cannot see why saying the things you’ve said has made you into a complete joke to anyone who has even the most cursory understanding of what transpired, here?
I want you to know, I’m not just being nasty, here.
I honestly, sincerely, from the bottom of my heart, pity you.
I cannot even begin to imagine going through life in such an incredibly thick and oppressive haze that it I am no longer able to grasp even the simplest of concepts or comprehend the most basic of communications.
I plead with you… read the posts from the beginning!
For your own sake!
Do what you must to attempt to understand the truth. It’s really not that hard, if you try.
So, for once in your lives, be above what you have been. Be better. Be informed. Be honest. Be correct. Be unbiased. Be devoid of hate and self-imposed ignorance
In short, do not be a Mooreon.
That is all.
Thank you.
Does this sequence even have any relevance to the film, other than “Look what a magnanimous guy I am”? I mean, seriously…
Most of the onesies read suspiciously like they’re written by the same person. I can’t prove anything, of course, but I can spread suspicion. :)
After all the discussion of Moore’s use of Moorewatch in Sicko, it’s great to finally see the thing, even if it’s just as a clip. A couple of reactions: is that the actual check? Did he bring in a camera crew to shoot that before it was sent out? (Working on a malice aforethought idea here)Or is it a replica done in post-production?
Moore is now attempting to create sympathy for himself by acknowledging enemies. It’s a way of circling the wagons, of developing loyalty in his base, us versus them. The odd bit is that he tries to portray himself as someone who reaches out to enemies with magnanimity--not exactly the style of fascist dictators I suppose. I’ve seen him in live speaking sessions get tired of obsequious questions and look around the room for a republican to liven things up. He likes controversy, it gets his juices going. He also understands that if you only preach to the converted, you’ll never expand your influence.
This is the first time he has done this in his films. On his website he has a section called “wacko attackos” which hasn’t really been maintained but supposedly would be his forum for doing instantaneous responses to virulent attacks. On the Slacker Uprising tour he had body guards. He knows people don’t like him and I think his first response is to lash back. This clip, however, involves quite a bit of thought and planning. There is a touch of “I am so important that I have websites attacking me” to it.
I find it a very weak point to make in a documentary about health care in America. Sure it would be nice if conservatives and liberals could work together to solve a problem. I just don’t know that the relationship between Moore and Moorewatch offers much of a explanatory metaphor for how that might be accomplished.
SO Michael Moore is now your benefactor? My irony meter just pegged and broke. Also, Isn’t illegal for you to be posting clips from his movie? Especially so considering it hasn’t even come out yet? Another Republican who thinks the laws don’t apply to him.
Posted by Libertarian Librarian on 06/13 at 09:08 AM
Another Republican who thinks the laws don’t apply to him.
Another liberal who thinks he defines the law.
Some wonder why our health care isn’t the greatest? Simply reading some of the posts here indicates a large percentage of people can’t comprehend what they read. That spells trouble in health care. :)
-Librarian, are you even aware of the tenets of libertarianism? Methinks you’re not clear on that.
But if you are indeed a librarian, please make sure you read up on the entire situation of the “donation” from Moore.
Long time reader (2001), first time poster.
To all of the new visitors, please read the posts before making uninformed comments. If you can’t stop the car and have a discussion, don’t yell obscenities out the window as you drive by.
As for the mission of the site: It’s more of an indictment on Moore’s techniques than his ideology. I actually agree with Morre’s views on some things, but I absolutely disagree with his method.
After digging up the deceased horse and picking up a stick, I have to say that I respect Jim much more for continuing to express his views. It would be disappointing to come here and see a change of heart over 12 grand.
The trolls are frustrating, but I do get a laugh out of them.
wiserbud, didn’t you post here before, either here or in the forums? I remember somebody going by “wiserbud” some time ago.
Woah, I don’t know what’s going on with the formatting. RR fixed the bolding, I tried to fix the italics, and my last post looks funky now.
Hmmm...last post looks better. How about this one? (Last test, really.)
It werrr the artmonkey! He be the the scallywag who scarved up the tags, ‘e did! All fixed. ;)
Max,
I hope you’re not claiming that Moore has moral superiority over Jim, since Moore’s deceits are a long-running and major part of his artistic style.
I don’t see how Moore “called off the dogs”. As I recall, he gave “permission” (that he didn’t have rights to give) to bootleg his movie BEFORE the company threatened to sue Jim. The threat was meaningless anyway, because Jim wasn’t actually bootlegging anything. Were you lying or just plain wrong about Moore “calling off the dogs”?
Maybe I have posted before, hmmm? Anyway, It is truly amazing to me that self-described intelligent folks take what they hear, read, see as gospel. It is obvious that Moore takes liberties with the truth, based on extensive examination of his previous projects.
As has been stated numerous times Moore does have some legit points, but he shoots himself in the foot with this tactics. This Jim K episode is a prime example. Someone posted earlier that More took a Win/Win and turned it into a Lose/Lose.
Max, can you give us a link to information about Moore getting the Weinsteins to call off the dogs?
Ooooh… nice try, Max.
That was actually a clever peice of intentional misunderstanding, and I give a slight bow to your pseudo-sleuthing.
However… this logic tends to fall apart when you notice a couple of things;
First, the absence of the word “me” in the sentence, “...I also put up the clip of Moore (me) giving public permission to bootleg the movie”
Second, is the chronology.
You imply that Moore’s permission was given as a response to the Weinstein company’s lawsuit.
As far as I recall, such permission was publicly given by Moore, likely not considering the implications of such, before any of these legal threats by the Weinstein Co occurred.
So it’s not a case of Moore coming to Jim’s rescue (or anyone’s rescue) or even letting Jim (or anyone else) ‘off the hook’, so to speak.
What is was, actually, was Moore using Weinstein to go after Jim, and then Jim responding by tossing Moore’s previous public statement about copying the film (along with proof that no infringement existed on his part) back into Moore’s face.
But, again… a really nice try. Kudos to you.
Oops.... it seems, in addition to being a careless coder (sorry Jim and Sethery) that I also need to start proof-reading my sentence strucure.
The presious example,
“...I also put up the clip of Moore (me) giving public permission to bootleg the movie.”
SHOULD have read,
“...I also put up the clip of Moore giving (me) public permission to bootleg the movie.”
My apologies for the confusion and bad coding.
Moore’s mailing list must have sent out fresh attack orders, for us to get such a bumper crop of new onesies and complete retards.
Either that or all these wonderful, faithful Moore fans are downloading his movie for free and working themselves into a tizzy over it.
Posted by wiserbud2008 on 06/13 at 11:16 AM
Maybe I have posted before, hmmm?
There was once a poster named wiserbud. He hasn’t been around in a while. This is his profile:
http://www.moorewatch.com/index.php/forums/member/7206/
I’m not claiming you’re him, just showing that I wasn’t crazy. And maybe hoping to clear up any confusion, although I might have been the only one confused. :)
In any case, I’m glad you decided to join and comment.
Posted by Max Singer on 06/13 at 11:34 AM
The point is that Moore NEVER EVER threatened to sue JimK. Period.
Jim hasn’t retracted or corrected that statement since he posted it three weeks ago.JimK is lying when he says otherwise. So anything else he says should be taken with a grain of salt.
That is one mighty weak point. EVERYTHING on the Internet should be taken with a grain of salt. Helloooooooo…
Are you going to address our points about Moore, or are you going to dodge?
Max, per your earlier entry—
“The company he formed with the Weinsteins threatened to sue me...”
Are you intending a distinction between Moore and a company he formed? If so, do you likewise make a distinction between, say, President Bush and his administration?
The point is that Moore NEVER EVER threatened to sue JimK. Period.
And my point is that Moore never threatened to sue Jim in exactly the same way that Moore has never made a film.
Given the Weinstein is Moore’s company, there is absolutely no reason to believe that Moore was not the instigating party.
(Aside, of course, from a willingness to stretch your logic to better fit an attempt at somehow discrediting Jim.)
Moreover, to the best of my knowledge (and I may well be wrong about this, granted) the WeinStein Co never threatened to sue the site that was actually hosting the film file, originally. They, instead, went directly after Jim and this site.
Given that multiple sites were linked to that host, and that anyone with a 4th grade education these days can tell the difference between a hosted file and a link, and that this site is what it is, regarding Moore.... well… I don’t know how good your math skills are, but 2+2, and all…
Face it, max. You’re wrong. “Period.”
Moore sicced his company on Jim, and got slapped in the face with his own words, and common sense, so they were forced to abandon the witch-hunt.
THAT. IS. ALL.
Posted by Max Singer on 06/13 at 11:34 AM
The point is that Moore NEVER EVER threatened to sue JimK. Period.
Jim hasn’t retracted or corrected that statement since he posted it three weeks ago.JimK is lying when he says otherwise. So anything else he says should be taken with a grain of salt.
Until you retract your statement about Moore “calling off the dogs”, you’re at least as much a liar as you claim JimK is. I say “at least”, because JimK actually posted the correct statement WHEN YOU ASKED HIM FOR IT, whereas you’re just dodging.
*skims the posts to date*
Wow. You know, I was hoping, futilely, that even though Moore is using the whole not-really-anonymous donation as a “gotcha” moment, he would at least strive for accuracy in, say, the sequence of events around the whole thing.
I’m no lawyer… but isn’t what Moore did in that bit libelous? Or skating on the edge of it, at least?
Anyway… about the trolls… I guess we know who saw an advanced screening of SiCKO and had to just race their uninformed butts to their computers and start typing away, eh?
Not libel, I don’t think. Libel is a total pain to try to prove. I think Jim is enough is enough of a private citizen to count as one, which makes the case a bit easier, but there still needs to be shown evidence that the lies have hurt him, I believe, as well as evidence that Moore was willfilly negligent about checking his facts. Though I could be a bit off on that, its been a couple years now since I’ve looked at libel from a journalistic perspective.
Beware peeps, this is just a taste of the action this site is going to get once the movie hits the US. There are going to be more drive-bys here than south central.
True. To which I say, “Bring it”
Not to mention that even though it’ll draw in large numbers of trolls and drive-by insults, could have some good members drop in as well
*cough* ended up here during the F9/11 rush */cough*
JimK is lying when he says otherwise. So anything else he says should be taken with a grain of salt.
No, YOU are the liar. The company that Moore founded with the Weinsteins made the original threat, then Lion’s Gate actually threatened me in public. Of course everyone backed off when I stood up to them and told them that not only were they ignorant of what was happening with the torrent, but that they could in fact kiss my ass over the whole thing and I welcomed the chance to get in a courtroom.
Moore’s *company* threatened me. Then he hid behind the distributor when it was public. It’s you that is the liar here, asshole.
On top of being a dick with his facts ass-backward, you’re dodging EVERY point everyone is making. You can be trusted to buckle down and stay on topic here, yes?
Posted by dvsone on 06/13 at 01:47 AM (Link to this comment)
“The more ive thought about it the more its made absolutley no sense to me. But then maybe its because i dont know any better?”
If you need to see specialist or need a special test (mri for instance) maybe you’ll know better… you’ll probably be over for a vist too.
re: the libel thing. Eh...it;s not so bad that I think it counts. He took stuff that I *did* say and strung it together as though it were all one event, much like he did to Heston in BFC, but one, I’m not the suing type. I think the legal system is broken under the strain of people who, instead of just defending themselves, sue like crazy.
Secondly, I’m not sure I’m not public enough to count as a “public figure.” At least online, anyway. I just don’t know where that line is. Either way...I wouldn’t sue over this.
It’s much better to just tell my story here and keep telling it. The tortoise always beats the hare in the fable, right? :)
RSS (Subscribe)
Actually, the two words I’ll take away from it are this, and they’re still true:
FUCK MOORE.