I have always tried to be honest and straightforward with the people on this board. In that spirit, I want it known that the creature calling itself “Dee” (and a variety of other names) has been permanently banned from this site. I kind of wondered what it would take for me to authorize Glenn to institute blocking someone from this site, and now I know: A poster making lewd and vile sexual comments involving my wife while utilizing explicitly vulgar language.
He of course immediately starting whining on Kathleen’s website about abridgement of free speech, which is the equivalent of showing up at someone’s party, vomiting on people while cursing them out, and then complaining when escorted out that the party thrower is a lousy host. At the earliest opportunity, he will be banned from that site as well.
Good bye and good riddance.
PAD
• 
Mr. “Boycottpad” (dee)
This may be the first time I have ever bothered to respond to you directly.
I want you to know this is not politically motivated. I am politically liberal. Guess what. My father and father in law are politically conservative. I am adamantly against the death penalty. The love of my life is adamantly for it. I have friends all over the political spectrum. I speak with them with respect and they do the same for me.
You want to call me a ‘leftie’ and a ‘liberal’ in your little illiterate rants, please do.
We don’t hate you because you’re right-wing.
We hate you because you’re a pathetic little snotnosedevoid of affect beyond the annoyance you cause by your incessant snipes from ambush.
As a society, we call annoying people áššhølëš because they don’t offer the world anything except stench and excrement. As such, it’s a fine descriptive term. But an unfair one. The actual sphincter in question performs an unpleasant, but necessary job that actually benefits the system around it; and does so with little complaint and dámņ little recognition. An actual sphincter of the sort works in congress with an entire spectrum of other organs and muscles to produce a healthy gestalt. A *human* áššhølë doesn’t have the excuse of being at the end of a digestive tract: he produces the waste without any of the nourishing input. As such, he is worse than useless. He’s like a toe unattached to a foot: powerless, pointless, disgusting, and indefensible. That, my friend, is you…
JosephW: Luigi, the concept of registered users isn’t a bad thing. The use of the Internet Movie Database as an example, however, is. I can’t believe some of the incredibly stupid posts allowed on that site’s boards. I’ve read more than a few posts on some on IMDb’s boards that make some of he-who-shall-not-be-named’s posts seem positively insightful.
Luigi Novi: True, but then again, Peter
Hmm,Why don’t you start your own blog Dee, I’m sure everyone’s intrested in your [snort] opinions.
Suggest if we start discussing F-911 we may be given a new thread for it?
Moore’s standard schtick didn’t bother me so much: That includes hitting up the senators to send their kids to war; it was a prank, he didn’t REALLY expect anyone to go for it–it was simply to make the point that few senators have anything to lose in the war. Moore always pulls this kind of border-tasteless prank–it calls attention to something in a humorous way, and really isn’t meant too seriously–witness dressing an actor up as Hitler and sending him into a Swiss Bank to ask for ‘his money’ on his TV show.
As far as his facts, he brings up valid points, but I wouldn’t use Michael Moore as my sole source in anything–research some of the points, if it’s important to you. Read Hitchen’s dissection of the flick on Slate, then read the refutation of the dissection on Hollywood Bìŧçhšláp, or google some facts up yourself.
“his focus on candid embarrassing moments as administration officials have their hair and makeup fixed on camera before going live is childish, irrelevant”
It’s done during the opening credits. What is it, three minutes of the film — interspersed with credits and such? It’s hardly a focus of the movie. And also, since it’s straight footage with no commentary attached, how is it possibly an embellishment (which is what you were talking about a sentence earlier)?
“and makes it seem as if Clinton and the Democrats never have their hair and makeup done,”
That may be your inference, but there’s no such message there — explicit or implicit.
“and his attempt to get Congressmen to sign up their kids for the military is obtuse, because parents don
Total agreement but also word of caution.
There is a book called “The Gift of Fear” by Gavin De Becker, which I recommend (unless you already done it) that you give a glance.
There are quite a few chapters that deal with ‘creatures’ like this “Dee”. Don’t want to scare you or anything but if you’ve read the book you know where I’m coming from.
Authors like yourself that are in the public ‘eye’ (so to speak) and even have had experience with these types of people (I always remember the incident you recount of Bill Mumy’s “Wish me to the cornfield” pestering fan) while you shouldn’t be 100% paranoid … you should be cautious.
Has anyone from the Bush camp come up with any reasonable explanation for the way Bush acted upon hearing about 9/11? I thought that the footage of Bush was quite dámņìņg.
Isn’t it amazing that a documentary of all things is the top box office film of the weekend? I wonder how Eisner feels? Perhaps more important, I wonder how the Disney shareholders feel?
’bout freakin’ time.
It’s one thing to be for free speech. It’s another thing to defend speech that’s the equivilent of walking into your house and pìššìņg on your rug.
Why do some people continue to think that “freedom of speech” means they can be vulgar, abusive and sometimes even threatening? I seriously doubt that’s why the phrase was coined & the right protected, and those who put it into the First Amendment would be appalled. I’m guessing it was meant to protect the exchange of ideas a.k.a. “discussion”, not insult people time and again for no other reason than “because s/he can.”
What’s wrong with some dignified behavior? THAT hasn’t been outlawed, it just takes more effort & control. And it helps get intelligent people to listen to you, Not Necessarily getting you the boot.
(I’d like to say that since the First Amendment says “Congress shall make no law…” and since PAD isn’t exactly a member of Congress that legally the “freedom” argument is moot, but it’ll start a whole new angry debate which deserves its own separate threads. Plus I’m not a lawyer.)
One bit of advice, though: I’d PRINT out vulgar posts like this, as soon as they’re posted/seen. Solid, non-electronic EVIDENCE that has less of a chance of being claimed as a forgery with the posting date so close to the date on the printout. Something, just in case, to send to whomever is letting “Dee” use their computer(s) for such crap. I doubt s/he is bright enough to cover such tracks…
I watched the trailer for “Michael Moore Hates America” and was not impressed by it for the following reasons unrelated to its political slant.
1) Simply pointing out that all documentaries excerpt pieces of interviews, and implying that since Michael Moore does the same, he is not to be trusted, does not exempt THIS documentary from the same criticism.
2) The interviews with folks who say they love America, that they can work hard and get hard, that a family with four people working (how many are those?) will work up a nest egg, that we’re free, etc…Michael Moore has said nothing, at any point, disagreeing with any of this. And the simple response, we’re a great country, etc, is while appreciated, not in and of itself an effective rebuttal to any of the SPECIFIC points Michael Moore has made. Maybe the movie, in full, does a better job on the bullet list. The trailer gives no such impression.
3) The Title. The orginal title, “Michael and Me,” with the poster that parodies the one for “Roger and Me,” was a little masterwork of rebuttal. It showed wit (as did the device of trying to chase down Michael for an interview — hoisting the man by his not-inconsiderable petard.) The title “Michael Moore Hates America” is absolutist and reductivist. It panders to the Dees of the world by stamping Moore with a label and then denying all his points that way. I’m sure it will do quite well with the crowd that shouts ditto, ditto, but examines nothing.
I will seek it out, if it shows anywhere near me. I think that’s fair.
I watched the trailer for “Michael Moore Hates America” and was not impressed by it for the following reasons unrelated to its political slant.
1) Simply pointing out that all documentaries excerpt pieces of interviews, and implying that since Michael Moore does the same, he is not to be trusted, does not exempt THIS documentary from the same criticism.
2) The interviews with folks who say they love America, that they can work hard and get hard, that a family with four people working (how many are those?) will work up a nest egg, that we’re free, etc…Michael Moore has said nothing, at any point, disagreeing with any of this. And the simple response, we’re a great country, etc, is while appreciated, not in and of itself an effective rebuttal to any of the SPECIFIC points Michael Moore has made. Maybe the movie, in full, does a better job on the bullet list. The trailer gives no such impression.
3) The Title. The orginal title, “Michael and Me,” with the poster that parodies the one for “Roger and Me,” was a little masterwork of rebuttal. It showed wit (as did the device of trying to chase down Michael for an interview — hoisting the man by his not-inconsiderable petard.) The title “Michael Moore Hates America” is absolutist and reductivist. It panders to the Dees of the world by stamping Moore with a label and then denying all his points that way. I’m sure it will do quite well with the crowd that shouts ditto, ditto, but examines nothing.
I will seek it out, if it shows anywhere near me. I think that’s fair.
Whoops. The phrase should have been “work hard and get ahead.”
“Work hard and get hard” was unintended.
But funny. (Blush).
>Posted by: adam-troy castro at June 28, 2004 04:43 PM
>Whoops. The phrase should have been “work hard and get ahead.”
>”Work hard and get hard” was unintended.
>But funny. (Blush).
Ðámņ…. and I just got off of the phone after volunteering for all of the overtime that the college would give me!
*ptui* We will speak of them no more.
And there was much rejoicing!
Yay!
Y’know, reading all these people agreeing with Peter, I thought to myself, “Is it even possible to present a coherent and logical argument *against* this action?” Then Dee was kind enough to post and answer me with an emphatic “No.”
One down, several million to go…
As someone who never saw the comments in question, (the only part of “dee’s” posts that I ever read is the name, — and then only to assure myself that I can safely skip the body of the text without missing anything insightful) I was surprised by the censure. Also a little surpised that PAD was even aware of it either, as I assumed everyone he (and everyone else) were also shrouding him. The only thing that booting him off the board really accomplished was letting him know that someone actually read his comments and reacted. Exactly what he wanted.
As someone who never saw the comments in question, (the only part of “dee’s” posts that I ever read is the name, — and then only to assure myself that I can safely skip the body of the text without missing anything insightful) I was surprised by the censure. Also a little surpised that PAD was even aware of it either, as I assumed everyone he (and everyone else) were also shrouding him. The only thing that booting him off the board really accomplished was letting him know that someone actually read his comments and reacted. Exactly what he wanted.
Good for you ,getting rid if that embarassment to
her particular species of subhuman.she should have been flushed a long time ago.I could have tolerated the permanent caps lock,if any of the opinions were remotely informative,new ,well thought out or original.The real thing for me was the vile racial,and personal assaults against Peter and now his family.
The thing that disturbs me is that people like DEE live among us every day with all that hatred and anger in them against anyone who doesnt think like they do.
Good bye and good riddance!!!!!!
“If nothing else, it’s a helluva lot better than White Chicks. :-)”
I think that’s what they call “dámņìņg with faint praise”… 🙂
Good for you! Free speech is not an excuse to say or do things that can hurt someone else. I hate to sound cliched here, but free speech is exactly what Peter Parker means when he said, “With great power, comes great responsibility.”
Ahhhh…you just know that “Dee” was a McFarlane fan…
You did the right thing PAD…good riddance.
Here I thought “Dee” was Todd McFarlane. My Bad.
Luigi Novi: his focus on candid embarrassing moments as administration officials have their hair and makeup fixed on camera before going live is childish, irrelevant
I’d have chucked him out after the viciously personal and anti-Semitic comments he made.
But then, you’re a much nicer person than I am…
Luigi Novi: There are certainly several places in the film where Moore embellishes.
I would hope so, since the primary point of a documentary is to promote a certain point of view. I can’t think of a single documentary that didn’t embellish, promote, or downplay certain points in order to push the director’s vision.
his claim that Saddam Hussein never threatened Americans is bogus
So when did Saddam threaten Americans? He’s certainly threatened various nations in the Middle East, including American allies like Israel, but I don’t recall offhand where he threatened Americans directly.
(And in a related vein, I’m slightly surprised Moore didn’t mention that the whole “Saddam tried to kill my daddy” bit was ultimately a hoax; the Kuwaitis fed the CIA bogus data in an attempt to prod us into another war)
his focus on candid embarrassing moments as administration officials have their hair and makeup fixed on camera before going live is childish, irrelevant and makes it seem as if Clinton and the Democrats never have their hair and makeup done
Considering the Democrats also got raked over the coals in this film (“Surely the Democrats will put a stop to this, right?…”), I think your point doesn’t have a leg to stand on. About the only Democrat who ends up not looking like a buffoon in this movie is Al Gore; watching him shoot down all those challenges to the Florida election results was simply tragic.
his attempt to get Congressmen to sign up their kids for the military is obtuse, because parents don
Moore
Glenn: Got an alert that my posts need to be approved first time through…on a post that wasn’t even my first time posting on this thread, much less this site…
Moore
Well, good one Peter. I had a similar problum with a forum that I used to run. I am of the same opinion that no one should be censured and that the freedom of speech is sacred. The I myself began to be flamed, my family and other people on the forum were attacked. So I banned the person. Simple, nobody needs to suffer. If someone bad mouths me once I ignore them, twice, I
The Bush White House (and, to a large extent, the complacent media) has had four years making George W. Bush look more presidential than he is. Denouncing Michael Moore for showing us the unvarnished George seems rather nitpicky.