I’d also take it from that one could still criticise Bush about it as well, even thinking the war had a positive outcome.

I think that there are some truth to both of the above quotes. Sure, he was angry about pacifists & liberals talking about Bush and the lies and whatnot. I don’t know if anywhere in there I found something linking blame to Bush, but I’ll concede that as well. But there is a clear indicator here: I take from this that Jim was so happy with the results of the war at the time and the good that was being done by our troops, that he was willing to accept the President admitting that perhaps he wasn’t being entirely honest (plus, come on, how many liberals would’ve been totally pissed off!!)

However, nowhere in the summary do I find any notion what what he said above was untrue or literary or disingenuous. And to me, that leads to questions about how he views what Moore does.

Now, in the interest of full disclosure, I will say that I love being an asshole (kicked off of this board once for demanding that Moorewatch also cover Mandy Moore), and I like Moore’s films (I think they’re really entertaining and that Moore does a good job balancing out the martyr image and the trickster), and I respect the hell out of some of the smarter posters here. But I still don’t think my point is invalid.

I take from this that Jim was so happy with the results of the war at the time

So now you’re just making things up out of whole cloth?

Go try to pick another nit - you completely blew this one.

Okay- so maybe you weren’t happy with the result. Let’s try this, and then instead of just throwing barbs around, you can try and explain to me what your intentions of the piece were (after all, who better than the author to explain the text).

But I’ll try this again, and you tell me where I’m off. The piece is (in my opinion) a shot against Moore and people the likes of Cindy Sheehan(sp?) and whatnot. You refer to what these people are doing as “evil”.

When you do nothing in the face of unspeakable horrors being perpetrated on innocent people who just want to make a living and raise their kids...that is evil.  And when you try to prevent others from acting because your philosophy is more important than the lives at stake, today and in the future, that is evil.  When you actively seek to undermine the office of the President to protect your philosophy instead of lives...that is evil.

You write of the horrors committed by the Husseins and say that we have saved many of the lives that they would’ve taken (which is what led me to believe that you were happy with the job our troops were doing, but I guess I stand corrected). And though you had issues with President Bush and some of his first term choies, you basically endorsed him:

But when it comes to the jobs I think the federal government should be doing...protecting my ability to breathe and forwarding the cause of freedom, I believe he is exactly the right man at exactly the right time.

But the introduction of this piece (after the Star Wars quote) basically says that you are angry with the loud anti-war segment of the left, and then you lead into the quote I’ve posted above. And, sure, you use some comic imaging (it is a nice touch to have the President say
“Suck it, bitches"), but nothing in the piece (and it can be found here: http://www.moorewatch.com/index.php/when_pacifism_becomes_evil/) leads me to believe that you’re not sincere (or at least partially sincere) in your words.

Now, I’ve raised this point. In fact, I’ve raised it twice before this now. But the first time, I’m a Moore-on who takes you out of context, and the second time, I’m a liar because I misrepresent how I took the essay to try and estimate your stance on the war in September of 2004. But the real question (for me) is this: how sincere was what you wrote, and how do you feel this relates to your stance on Moore?

I don’t think I’m asking this in a mean or misleading way. And if I am, then please correct me. I’ll be the first to say I’m not the smartest person on this board, and I know my English skills are marginal at best. (After all, you run this board to the delight of many, while my writing consists of rock criticisms that a handful of people read). This was just something that I found interesting, and thought it applied to the subject.

For the record, our newest troll is taking his quote from a post I made in September of 2004 called ”When pacifism becomes evil.” In case anyone is interested in seeing for themselves the context of my words.

Truth_Takes_Time:

You state:

But there is a clear indicator here: I take from this that Jim was so happy with the results of the war at the time....

The statement “I take from this” implies you feel you have determined a clear and decisive motive for why Jim wrote what he did at the time that he wrote it. However, since you are not Jim, you have no way to be conclusive as to exactly what Jim’s motives were for writing what he did when he did it. Given that you simply have no way of clearing determining motive, can you honestly say that that you know for a fact that “Jim was so happy with the war” and the other items you presupposed? In point of fact, can you honestly say you can clearly determine any precise motive at all?

Going one step further, I notice that in your comment you excised one short section of a much longer entry. In addition to that, as you yourself have already noted, this entry of Jim’s came in the midst of a hailstorm of political rhetoric about the war from all sides, the majority of which was negative in tone. If you take into account the entirety of Jim’s original post as well as the political climate that surrounded it, isn’t it more than possible you have misjudged and misinterpreted what Jim’s motives for that post might have been? Moreover, given the entire political canvas at the time of the Jim’s original post, wouldn’t it be entirely possible to chalk that post up as a nothing more than a frustrated rant?

I posted the link above as well, though without the hyperlink. Also, I’m not quite a troll. This account has been around for a while now.

More importantly (and I hate repeating myself so much, but I’d really like this question answered), how is my interpretation of your essay different from yours?

Oh, well. I’m off to bed. My wife has been away for a few days, and sharing a bed with her is a joy I sometimes take for granted. Not tonight. Perhaps my answer will come if I have time to check my e-mail before I leave for work. If not, I’ll look again when I return from work.

Good night, all.

(I saw this, so I’ll try and make this quick)

Donna-

As for your first paragraph, I’m not sure I agree with you over my choice of words (though this seems a little like semantics to me). My intent (and one that I stand by) was that Jim seemed to think that the United States was doing a good job (with good intentions) in Iraq at the time. I guess the reason I feel this way came from the paragraph of the evils going on in the Iraqi government and the countless murders of innocents. This led into his endorsement of Bush (which it is- he says he’ll vote for him in the election), and the quote I posted above about “forwarding the cause of freedom”. The connection (to me) seems to be this: bad things happened in Iraq. The U.S. under Bush stopped that. A good thing happened. Despite whatever deaths have come, a greater good has been (and is being) done. I thought I was putting 2 and 2 together there, but if this was not Jim’s intent, then I do stand corrected (as I already said a few posts ago).

As for your questions in the second paragraph, I’m more than willing to admit the possibility that I am misrepresenting this, and that it was just a tirade in a negatively toned piece. If I saw that written by your husband, I’d have no choice but to believe him. After all, he wrote it: why wouldn’t I trust him and his intentions?

It is, however a slippery slope, and I think you’d agree to that (though making assumptions has caused me to get in trouble). In my mind, the original quote that I posted (where I get maligned for taking Jim out of context) is kind of the centerpiece of the essay. It seems as though it probably came from a place of anger, as does most great satire and political essays. My question is, is there any truth in it? Because surely, it is a damning statement which is mentioned and then never elaborated on.

Perhaps Jim was so angry at the left that he was hoping the President would say something like that just to fluster the left. Perhaps there is truth in it. Who knows? That’s why I’m asking.

So what we have here is a small piece of something that was said four years ago, which supposedly undermines Jim’s credibility. According to Truth Takes Time, Jim’s post about Star Wars and evil pacifism are evidence that Jim doesn’t believe in the things he professes to believe in.

The trouble with that is that in the part of the post that was omitted, Jim admonishes the reader to disregard the reasons, whatever they were, for going to war, and simply focus on the result.

Truthtakestime’s post seems compelling on the surface. The way the quote is presented, one might think that there is some discrepancy in Jim’s views. However, if you read the entire post, it becomes clear that Jim is concentrating on something other than the thing Truth’s excerpt focuses our attention on. The theme of the entire post is similar to the addage, “The best way for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.”

Now, one can agree or disagree with the post, but we should look at the entire thing rather than one section.

Truth_Takes_Time:
I am sorry for the delay in my response to you - I retired early last night as well. I would also like to thank you for your civil tone and attitude in your reply - it is much appreciated. :)

I noticed a two main things in your response to which I’d like to respond if I may. The first and foremost thing I would like to address is that the tone of this comment is markedly different than the tone in your first comments to this post. Initially, you entered this fray with a very combatative stance and were very definitive as to what you thought Jim’s intentions and beliefs were concerning lying for the greater good. As the debate went on, your definitiveness morphed into assumptions and in this most recent reply, you openly admit you may have made mistakes in judgment and that you made many guesses that, to you, seemed to create a complete picture concerning Jim’s feelings about lying. I do applaud you for having the courage to admit that you may have been in error in your intial comments - it is certain more than many commenters display.

The second thing about which I’d like to comment is the overall issue of context, which has been touched on by both you and others but not fully elaborated. If I understand you correctly (and please correct me if I make any errors here), upon reading this single two year old post of Jim’s you feel Jim is submitting the view that lies are acceptable if they serve to create a greater good by using the war in Iraq as an example of this principle.

I would like to submit the following to you in rebuttal. Over the course of Jim’s entire blogging career, which at this point spans several years, Jim has consistantly and thoroughly denounced lying “for the greater good” for any reason. The reason Moorewatch exists is based upon the very fact that Jim, along with Lee, felt that Michael Moore’s tactics of lying in order to achieve some kind of greater good were simply unacceptable - a view, incidentally, to which I subscribe as well. In Jim’s own blog you can find countless numbers of entries where he denounces people from the left, right and center for lying “for the greater good”. I have never once seen Jim defend the notion that the ends justify the means, and as his wife I can verify that that tennet is at the core of his belief system.

So, in summation, to defend your hypothesis, you have a snippet of one post written during an incredibly politically turbluant time where you feel Jim states a lie for the greater good is acceptable. In constrast, I can demonstrate years upon years of posts, both here and elsewhere, where Jim repeatedly and vehemently denounces any type of lie, whether it be for the greater good or not. In reflection, can you now see why Jim should not *have* to answer the question? The sheer volume of posts he has made concerning deception and the very existance of this site countermand your view. The answer to your question should be plainly obvious. Of course Jim does not condone lying for the greater good or the concept of the ends justifying the means. There is simply too much evidence stacked against that assertion. If you can step back to objectively review the two sides, I think you can see why Jim, as well as many others, were incensed by your assertion as it is simply so very contrary to everything Jim has said and done online, especially in this blog.

Once again, thank you for your time, and I look forward to your response.

Oh my god.  I love her.  She’s all that, a bag of chips, three sodas and a corn dog.

Truth...that’s called “being schooled.” Only she did it nicely and politely.  Say thank you to the nice lady and move on.

But I still don’t think my point is invalid.

Your point is invalid. You took something I said and applied to an attack on Jim and this website. No matter how you slice it - it is a classic troll maneuver.

Jim, you have a very kind and good wife. You should consider yourself lucky. In the world which exists outside the non-blogosphere, you two are people who my wife and I would probably get along famously with. I like people like this. I like to think that these are my people.

I’d like to bring something up that’s been said twice about me, once by Jim and once by wolfschant. I’m not (at least I don’t consider myself to be) a troll. If you look at my account, I think that I’ve been here for over 3 years now. True, I have less than 30 posts, but I just don’t post that much. I prefer to post on other message boards (a whopping zero of them political- stop by the Sound Opinions Message Board for some great talk about music, though- I use my real name, MattDrufke, when posting there). But I am around. Perhaps that defines your definition of a troll, but it does not for me (please no wikipedia posts here).

You raise a point, Donna, which again leads us down a very slipperly slope, though you write your points elloquently and well-thought while mine just come out as the rants of a sleep-deprived provoker with really no agenda other than to be difficult (see the above post). And I would agree that someone’s history is very important in determining whom they are. I have no reason to believe that Jim isn’t the person he is in any of the posts which he writes, and I certainly know that we all say things that we don’t mean, especially when we’re angry or talking about politics or (god forbid) both. And perhaps you’re right. Maybe this was something which came from an extremely heated political climate in one of those great Network moments of “I’m mad as hell, and I’m not going to take it anymore.” And I’d like to see Jim say something like that. It would probably lead to the end of this point.

I think part of why I continue to post on the topic has been your husband’s response to all of this. He does this website very well, but (and you will forgive me while I speak a little critically of a person you love) his response to all of these posts seemed a little reactionary. Name calling ("Moore-on", “troll"). The issue of taking things out of context (when I posted the link and encouraged people to read the essay in its’ entirety). The accusation of creating opinions out of whole-cloth (I still maintain that the piece could be read as support of the war). I am a person who loves a good debate, and a good fight. I think that it’s how we learn the most about others, and about ourselves. But there was no explanation, there was no debate. It all seemed a little off to me. Now, this may come to the scores of hate e-mail he undoubtedly gets, but all the same.

Perhaps because the text is so contradictory (in any context, in my opinion- especially to the entirety of the blog), that I found it odd when I read it a few years ago. And now, coming back to this site after a few month hiatus, I remembered it, and still found it odd. You are right. These are just a few small words that seem to go against a mountain of words otherwise. But they are his words. And I’m just curious as to what they mean. But if Jim (and you) feel that he doesn’t need to defend himself, than that’s fine, and on his board, he shouldn’t have to explain himself to anyone he doesn’t want to (let alone me). After all, this was all just brought up for the sake of some discussion and some fun, the very reason God invented Al Gore to invent the internet: so that message boards could be spawned. (Sorry, couldn’t help myself with that one. I realize that one joke may be all people see, but it still makes me laugh.)

Donna, if you want to keep talking about this, then let’s delve away. Spirited civil debate is about as much fun as you can have on the internet. I still find the quote a trifle alarming, and you still believe that the mass text which has come from this site is enough to prove that Jim doesn’t believe that a lie used for the greater good is acceptable. That’s what makes this so much fun.

Jim, hug your wife for me. And give her a foot rub. I’m off to bed myself.

p.s. Don’t worry about not responding until this evening. I just sat down at my PC after running some laundry.

p.p.s. I apologize to everyone about the overuse of parentheses. I know I use them way too much. An English major, I am not.

Also, head to the threads to find my 50 favorite discs of 2007(so far). I know it’s completely off topic, but man, I love music.

Truth_Takes_Time:

Before I respond to the bulk of your post, I would like to clear up the definition of a “troll” as it pertains to sites and boards like this one. The term “troll” has nothing to do with length of membership on a site and everything to do with the manner in which one posts on said site. The term refers to the fishing term “trolling”, where one casts out a long line and drags it along, hoping some poor fish will take the bait. Someone who “trolls” on a site or messageboard is someone who casts out contrary points simply for the sake of being contrary because they are looking for a good argument. Since you yourself have on repeated occassions stated that you enjoy good arguments and look for fights, coupled with the nature of this particular argument you chose to make, I would have to say the name “troll” does in fact apply to you. I’m apologize if that offends you, but as dictionary definitions go, you fit it magnificently.

Now, on to the majority of your post. Are you familiar with the term ”res ipsa loquitur”? It is used in the American legal system and means simply “the thing speaks for itself” - in other words, the simple facts need nothing else to support their claim. The principle of res ipsa loquitur applies marvelously in this debate of ours. You have, on your side of the claim, a few words that you assume mean Jim supports lying for the greater good. On my side of the claim I have several years of posts spanning multiple sites across the Internet that conclusively and without a shadow of doubt prove Jim is virulently against this same notion. Were this a hand of Texas Hold ‘Em, you just missed that inside straight for which you wer praying and I’m sitting pretty with four aces. Res ipsa loquitur, Truth_Takes_Time - the facts speak for themselves. Jim’s words and work speak for themself, and, in a case and question as obvious as the one you have put forth, it *is* in fact insulting to continuously demand that Jim explain himself when he so clearly does not need to. His work is all the explaination he needs. Period.

I have enjoyed this correspondence with you and I hope that you have taken something valuable from it - I know I have. I thank you for your offer to keep debating this point but the cards have been dealt, I have won the pot, and the dealer has left the table. I appreciate you kind wishes and your good sportmsmanship and I wish you well in the future. :)

It was as if Truth takes Time’s post were a candle and we just looked directly into the sun.
Kudos. The best to Mr and Mrs K.

I sent an email with many of these sentiments in it last week, but it wasn’t posted or perhaps it wasn’t received. In any case, I am one of the folks who discovered this site after seeing Sicko and am curious if it’s occurred to the moderators of Moorewatch that Moore’s decision to include the incident with the check may have been the best thing to happen to this site. After all, you’re getting a ton of free press, and exposing the site to countless people (like myself) who never would have seen or seeked it out, whether they agree with you or Moore or both or neither.

In any case, I have no opinion about receiving or returning the check - Moore sent it, you guys spent it, seems like everyone got what they needed or wanted. But after reading many of the comments and posts on the site, including some particularly antagonistic and hateful responses and generalizations about those who support or even just enjoy Moore’s movies, I have to wonder what is the real purpose of this site? If it’s to deconstruct Moore’s films and arguments, then fine; but the “Moore fans are stupid,” “your argument is stupid,” “all people who like Moore are *ssholes,” etc. only undermines your credibility as a repository for exposing the filmmaker’s shortcomings/inaccuracies.

I do like Moore’s films, and I don’t think you are wrong in your breakdowns of his points. But when you outright dismiss responses and tell people to “have the decency to die,” it doesn’t matter what you say because the site comes across as unreceptive of any point of view except those that you present - which is in fact what you regularly accuse Moore of. This site could be a valuable tool for folks uncertain about Moore’s accuracy, or a resource for opposing viewpoints of all kinds, but when you tell your readers or responders that they are stupid, they should f*ck off, they should die, then you reduce your own high moral position and lower yourself to the level where you’ve relegated Moore (much less the readers whom you despise).

This is something that I actually do know about; I am an editor on an online entertainment site, and as a person who is a voice of authority on a public forum, much less one that asserts itself as loudly as yours, you do have a responsibility at some level to take the high ground and not just say “f*ck you” when someone disagrees or even says “f*ck you” first. (After receiving some 300 responses for a review of Star Wars Episode III, 75% of which were negative, I can appreciate how difficult this is.) Ultimately, I respect the site as an online forum to discuss Moore’s movies and other issues of political or social relevance, but until you elect to support your arguments with hard facts and clear logic rather than pithy responses and antagonistic insults, you will remain a footnote in Moore’s film (and his career) instead of the powerful resource that you have the opportunity to be.

I sent an email with many of these sentiments in it last week, but it wasn’t posted or perhaps it wasn’t received. In any case, I am one of the folks who discovered this site after seeing Sicko and am curious if it’s occurred to the moderators of Moorewatch that Moore’s decision to include the incident with the check may have been the best thing to happen to this site. After all, you’re getting a ton of free press, and exposing the site to countless people (like myself) who never would have seen or seeked it out, whether they agree with you or Moore or both or neither.

In any case, I have no opinion about receiving or returning the check - Moore sent it, you guys spent it, seems like everyone got what they needed or wanted.

The “I’m so objective” leadup, aaaaand…

But after reading many of the comments and posts on the site, including some particularly antagonistic and hateful responses and generalizations about those who support or even just enjoy Moore’s movies, I have to wonder what is the real purpose of this site? If it’s to deconstruct Moore’s films and arguments, then fine; but the “Moore fans are stupid,” “your argument is stupid,” “all people who like Moore are *ssholes,” etc. only undermines your credibility as a repository for exposing the filmmaker’s shortcomings/inaccuracies.

The real point. “You’re all just insulting meany poo-poo heads! Moore fans are obviously ever so calm, rational, and interested in real debate, but you’re being MEAN!”

This is something that I actually do know about; I am an editor on an online entertainment site, and as a person who is a voice of authority on a public forum

Wow, even an attempt at grabbing legitimacy with “I’m a very important person! You need to listen to me!”

This one’s got his lame “stealth troll” textbook and he’s running it by the numbers.

Oh, by the way. Fuck you. (It’s okay, you can curse on the internet.)

What a response - thanks for validating a lot of my points. I never said that all or any Moore fans who visit this site were “calm, rational and interested in real debate,” but someone else being a jerk or “irrational” is not just cause to be an irrational jerk, especially if (again) you (meaning this site) are in a position of legitimate power to steer reader opinions with your rhetoric. Taking the high road means not being baited by someone saying something inarticulate and antagonistic, but it also means that your opponent(s) might respect what you have to say even when they disagree, and ultimately create a more credible atmosphere for discussion and debate.

Apologies if my previous post suggested I was “an attempt at grabbing legitimacy;” I thought it prudent to pre-emptively offer my background before someone else said “you have no idea what you’re talking about because you haven’t received hundreds of hateful emails.” I know my opinion is no more important than anyone else’s, but I take seriously the responsibility of speaking for the outlets to which I contribute because the way I present myself reflects them. But legitimate or no, I am a Moore fan and I am interested in calm, rational, real debate, which is hopefully evidenced by both of these posts.

I am a Moore fan and I am interested in calm, rational, real debate

No you’re not.  If you were, you’d note the HUNDREDS of article on this site that do not include any insults, attacks, jokes or the words “fuck” and “you” in close proximity to each other.

You saw what Moore wanted you to see in the film, and you came here to give me shit. Just admit it, and then we can put it aside and actually have a reasonable conversation about Sicko.

mtgilchrist,

You said:

until you elect to support your arguments with hard facts and clear logic rather than pithy responses and antagonistic insults

which demonstrated that you haven’t bothered to read anything on this site other than what’s on the front page (and you missed some stuff there, apparently). I’m guessing that THAT’s the reason you got the response you did from Rann.

Moore’s been making movies for years; this site’s been around for years; you should try reading more than what’s on the front page. You can’t expect the site owners to be blogging about a movie that nobody - except some reporters, those in the industry, people willing to break the law and a few folks in France - has been able to see.

Wait until there’s a Michael Moore movie viewable by the public that isn’t three years old before you start bitching about the lack of “hard facts” and “clear logic”. And if you want to see the “hard facts” and “clear logic” posted here in response to his previous films, again, dig deeper than the front page! His last film was released three years ago!!!

Thus far I’ve sent one email and made two posts on this site - all of which were calm and respectful. As I said before, I see this site as a great opportunity to challenge Moore’s arguments and to have a really vivid discussion about current political issues, particularly since in many of your articles/ posts you indicate that you aren’t simply a Rightist or even just a contrarian. I think the site makes some great points and certainly highlights the flaws in some of Moore’s arguments, but I think the reason that other publications describe the site as “bilious” (as was quoted in another article you referenced) or don’t take some of what you say seriously is because the rhetoric isn’t objective or purely factual. That doesn’t mean it isn’t correct, because I’m sure that much of it is, but when it’s packaged in a lot of name-calling and aggression it lessens the impact of what you’re trying to say.

I have no interest in “giving you shit.” Having discovered your site in the wake of what was documented in Sicko, and subsequently reading through many of the posts and news articles posted on Moorewatch, I am only interested in seeing the site succeed as a legitimate challenge to Moore’s movies and a forum for invigorating, respectful political debate.

Thus far I’ve sent one email and made two posts on this site - all of which were calm and respectful.

Do we really need to go over this one again?

Just because you’re not openly insulting someone doesn’t mean you’re being respectful. Your message was a long-winded and thinly-veiled “You’re full of shit”. You implied we had nothing but insults and attack… that’s hardly a respectful position.

Want to know why you get insults and attack? Because it’s all you deserve. You’re insulting our intelligence by thinking we’ll buy your bullshit and your pretensions of just wanting it to be a better site and not being here to troll.

We’re not buying it. You came here to claim that our arguments were baseless and backed up with nothing. At least with the open trolls shouting “You’re wrong and liars and should die!” you know where they stand. You’re too chickenshit to actually step up and say what you mean without trying to cloak yourself in the protection of “But I’m being so calm and reasonable!”

You say you want us to be a forum for “invigorating, respectful political debate”? First off, this is not a political forum. It is only political insofar as Michael Moore politicizes every subject he approaches. While politics winds up playing a part in discussions, attempting to turn us into a “political debate” forum is trying to take the focus off your chubby overlord. Also, I wonder why we’re expected to be held to such a ridiculously high standard in counterpoint to Moore, while you apparently feel it’s perfectly all right for him to insult, sneer, and use immoral and unethical tactics in his work. You are, after all, a Moore fan. Why does he get to be snide and insulting ("Stupid White Men”, anybody?) while we have to be sainted eunuchs?

And, again, fuck you. Get the fuck out. Become an hero.

I don’t think you, or anyone on this site is full of shit at all. I didn’t say nor do I think that the site has nothing but “insults and attack.” And I definitely don’t think that your “arguments were baseless and backed up with nothing.” I think the site has many legitimate points to make and often does a very good job deconstructing Moore’s arguments. There is plenty of valuable information on this site for both fans and critics of Michael Moore, because the site shows the ways in which Moore condenses and sometimes manipulates facts to make his points. What I’m saying is that verifiable fact and indisputable truth can be obscured by bad language, generalizations and personal insults.

My apologies, again, if I inferred more about the site than it intends - if this site is not designed to be a forum for political discourse and debate. But I think this site has a great opportunity to push forward its information, in so doing refuting Moore’s arguments and documenting the truth about his films.

I don’t think taking the high road in a debate qualifies as a “ridiculously high standard.” I also don’t think that someone being “snide and insulting” justifies their opponent doing it in return. I assume that the level of discourse on this site is intended to be at an adult level, not playground-style retaliation. This is the second response I’ve received where essentially you said “he/she/they were mean, so we should be mean in return.” Just because Moore or Moorewatch opponents choose to challenge articles on this site with bad language and personal attacks does not mean mods/posters either need to or should respond in kind, especially if you hope to reach mainstream readers or folks who already are not entrenched in opposing Moore viewpoints.

mtgilchrist, I suspect nothing we do will satisfy you - hence my attitude.

I refuse to censor the other writers, so if you have issues with them, please don’t issue blanket proclamations on general posts like this one.  Talk to them.

If you have an issue with something I say, then go to that post and raise your objections.

Rann’s right on, by the way, when he says that being polite is not the same as being respectful.  I don’t demand that you be respectful, but don’t you dare spit in my eye and call it a salve.  When you are politely-but-passively aggressive, you are not being respectful.

Not to mention that you’re blanketing all commenters with aggression when not everyone does that and so you’re making nearly as much a generalisation based on the comments as anyone here makes about Moore fans based on the people that come here to defend him.

I don’t really know where “nothing we do will satisfy you” came from, since I was never talking about my satisfaction, or lack thereof, with the site. I offered some feedback about my impressions of the site based upon a number of posts and articles I read, first directly via email, and then through the comments, because as I said above in all of my posts, I think this site has something important to contribute, and makes some good points, and has a real opportunity to reach people who might endorse Moore’s arguments without looking at them more deeply. I never used the word “all” in reference to anything posted on this site, and in fact am not directly addressing anyone except the folks who post original stories and articles. My point, to reiterate, is to suggest you will draw more flies with honey than you will with vinegar; in other words, I think some of the valuable information that you present your audience might get lost to outsiders (and even some supporters) because of the language that you use. I think tone and voice is extremely important on any online site - especially in the sense that it should be immediately palpable - and if first-time readers immediately see personal attacks or comments like “have the decency to die,” they might not bother to look deeper at the intelligent, in-depth rhetoric that lurks within. Overweight though Michael Moore may be, calling him fat or a lard ass or whatever obscures the fact that he fabricates his arguments, and further, calling his fans and followers Moore-ons eliminates the possibility that they might be swayed by your heartfelt and accurate logic. (Although, the latter is admittedly a clever pun.)

You’re absolutely right, Mr. Kenefick, being polite is not the same as being respectful. But I’m not really sure where my complimentary and constructive comments were disrespectful; that said, I would be happy to clarify and/or apologize if necessary if they were interpreted as such because (again) as I said above, I respect what your site stands for, I respect your efforts to challenge Michael Moore and find the truth behind his filmmaking, and most of all, I respect all of your opinions, whether or not I agree with them. (Okay, there I did use “all.") Nowhere in any of my posts did I say one shred of information on your site is inaccurate, incorrect, or plain wrong; I think what you have to say has great validity both in the imediate context of Moore’s films and as a commentary on the larger culture of rhetoric and divisive politics.

In any case, however, good luck with your site and I hope you have success reaching out to more and more Moorewatch readers in the future.

Nowhere in any of my posts did I say one shred of information on your site is inaccurate, incorrect, or plain wrong

I have to disagree with this assertion; you led off with this:

“until you elect to support your arguments with hard facts and clear logic rather than pithy responses and antagonistic insults, you will remain a footnote in Moore’s film”

when the first thing out of the gates is to tell people to use facts “rather than” insults (alternately, facts “instead of” insults, or “in place of” or “in lieu of"), you are rather strongly stating that facts and logic are not being presented on this site.

Your recent disclaimers of the site containing “valuable information” and “accurate logic” is a direct contradiction to this.  So it’s not clear to the reader where you stand, and even granting an explanation, it will not be clear whether you’re sincere or just taking Jim et al for a ride.  The tone of your initial post (which I quoted above, and which someone else quoted to you and you didn’t really respond to what he pointed out then either) has engendered this defensive posture.  As someone who (ostensibly) wishes to make the point that vitriol turns people off to the facts you are trying to present, I’m sure you can appreciate how that can happen.

I for one agree that the focus should remain on the facts and not so much on personal attacks.  But this site is an editorial one, and as such, the authors are going to say what they’re going to say, and their personal opinions are perfectly legitimate material.  Moreover, rational discussion with 99.5% of the visitors is an exercise in futility, as they repeatedly demonstrate a lack of capacity to read and absorb information, poor logic skills, and the inability to do much of anything other than take something spewed by Moore (alternately Kos, Huffington, DU), get a good mad on, and regurgitate it with some choice words about any who dare dissent with The Prophet Moore.

If you wish to rise above that sort of drivel, you have a rather large mountain to scale (and no, it’s not particularly fair; thank your compatriots for that), and your opening post didn’t really do anything to help you.

I know someone who’s going to get a surprise in their inbox…

when the first thing out of the gates is to tell people to use facts “rather than” insults (alternately, facts “instead of” insults, or “in place of” or “in lieu of"), you are rather strongly stating that facts and logic are not being presented on this site.

Fair enough - my apologies for not being clear about what I was trying to say, which I recognize is probably not a good thing on a site as used to contentious discourse as this one (and that isn’t a dig either, just an observation). But to address the points you refer to in the initial response by Rann,
if I had issue with specific points on the site I would respond to them directly; I don’t think it’s disingenuous (and certainly wasn’t meant to be insulting) to observe that the publicity generated through the film does benefit this site - if only to increase its traffic and therefore visibility, which is good if the moderators want to destroy Moore’s arguments.

I for one agree that the focus should remain on the facts and not so much on personal attacks.  But this site is an editorial one, and as such, the authors are going to say what they’re going to say, and their personal opinions are perfectly legitimate material.  Moreover, rational discussion with 99.5% of the visitors is an exercise in futility, as they repeatedly demonstrate a lack of capacity to read and absorb information, poor logic skills, and the inability to do much of anything other than take something spewed by Moore (alternately Kos, Huffington, DU), get a good mad on, and regurgitate it with some choice words about any who dare dissent with The Prophet Moore.

In any case, you seem to have taken my point, even if realistically the possibility of a balanced and rational forum is unlikely (per your comments above). But again, my intention was never to do more than offer some constructive feedback, and if it came across unclear or as disrespectful I apologize. Godspeed.

mtgilchrist - Thank you for making it more clear.  I see how we got off on the wrong foot, and I respect and appreciate that you took the time to explain yourself.

For my part, I apologize for categorizing you along with the dregs that come here only to start trouble.

Let’s call this day zero, and go forward and have some decent conversations from this point on.  Cool?

Jimmy, Jimmy, Jimmy…

Where to start?

I have a few simple and painfully obvious questions for you. Yes, they’ve been asked already, but you seem to want to spin, rather than assess and own up to your actions.

1. You DID cash the check from Moore, didn’t you?

2. After finding out who the money came from, you DID keep it, didn’t you?

3. Can you say “hypocrite”?

I’ve also noticed that you demand “respectful and decent” comments from all posters here, yet I see the largest percentage of name calling and derogatory comments here coming from YOU. This is strange, coming from someone creating a site supposedly dedicated to honest rebutal of another person’s work. You sure don’t have much tolerance for dissenting points of view, sir. It makes me wonder why you even bother with a message board at all on your site. Wouldn’t it be easier to skip the pretense of welcoming rebutal, and just rant?

As you suggested, I’ve read your profile, or “bio”, as you call it, prior to leaving my comments, and see that you are now disavowing your Republican party. Can’t say that I blame you. I’ve encountered many Republicans who feel let down by President Shitforbrains, and partially reponsible for enabling this idiot and his evil cabal, not once, but TWICE these last seven years. Only the most rabid goose-stepping apologists remain to defend Bush’s insanity, (some 20 odd percent at last estimate) All I can say is that Michael WARNED you all in ‘04, but 59 million (supposedly) of you refused to smell the coffee. Sad part is, we ALL are suffering the consequences of what you all have done. Maybe you could try and understand why the rest of us are a bit testy in our dialogue with even the “reformed” Bush enablers. We’re just at the end of our rope with all this madness…

One last thing. I SINCERELY hope that you and yours are well, and that your wife is getting everything she needs to live a long and healthy life. That is your right, my friend.

*sigh*

Someone can’t read the TOS to which he agreed before signing up.  Signing up just to insult me is a one-way ticket out of here, and I’m not giving warnings anymore.  Join a discussion and make a contribution to the site - even if I don’t like your politics, your opinion will be welcome.

Unless all you’re here to do is slam *me* personally.  Then?  Well you can fuck right off.

Wow. It’s like you wrote down every single bit of stupid crap that the drive-by trolls have ever said, and posted them all together in a single comment. It reads like a laundry list of the statements of the retarded.

I am not interested in starting a fight but I see Michael Moore’s methods being attacked an awful lot, and though I don’t really care about his methods, I just thought it was a little funny that many of the comments on here against Michael Moore seamed to be carried out in “his” fashion. Also I find humor in the fact that conversations seam to go in circles. What one accuses someone else of being or doing, the accuser is guilty of the same thing. Of course I am sure that i will be ridiculed highly for what I just said, but that only serves my point.

thank you for claryifying whatever you felt needed to be clarified. now i say..it really doesn’t matter.