Fashionistas you have arrived 3-25-03 - 10-3-03

[Connect_the_Dots]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
I'm hoping all of this is a tongue-in-cheek reference to the USA PATRIOT Act, but the Second Amendment doesn't protect Heston's right to buy guys since he's not in a militia. I understand that the NRA has tried to read that inconvenient text out of the Second Amendment, but it's still in there. If you disagree, I suggest we take it up on the Politics Board.

1) Yes, I was referring to PATRIOT Act.

2) Ty, it is not "there". "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, [<-- comma = preamble] the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. " [<--enabling clause that doesn't mention militias]

3) I agree that this is better left to the politics bd.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
If you like to help repair this travesty, go here .

People who buy into Moore also firmly believe that Stone is the only one who really knows how JFK got shot. Don't confuse them with facts.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
If you like to help repair this travesty, go here .

I'm very disappointed that this site is not about Forest Gump.

[leagleaze]

Originally posted by bilmore
Cool. A hidden, unsupported, and snide assertion. You HAVE been watching Moore.

I don't think it was particularly hidden. Nor is it an assertion, it is an opinion.

It was however snide.

I haven't made an argument one way or the other for gun control in this conversation, don't plan on getting into it in fact. And one would have to be foolish to not watch Moore's work with a critical eye, it was clear what his bias was and what his intention was.

That doesn't stop the work from being a useful starting point for conversation.

It also doesn't stop someone from looking like an ass. Admittedly, as I already said, given Moore's intent it isn't surprising he made him look that way and probably set out to do so.

Edited to say:

However the links you posted Slave do cause a real problem with using his film as a useful starting point for conversation. In fact it does make one wonder why he won an academy award. I agree reading this stuff that it is absolutely improper to play with information and film in the way in which they say he did here. So, I take back my snide opinion Bilmore.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by leagleaze
So, I take back my snide opinion Bilmore.

Moore is the worst kind of evil - he's a smart, calculating, lying kind of evil. That's worse than stupid evil any day - because he will fool so many otherwise intelligent people into holding as truth, in the back of their minds, the basic ideas that he had to edit so distortedly to present.

[leagleaze]

Originally posted by bilmore
Moore is the worst kind of evil - he's a smart, calculating, lying kind of evil. That's worse than stupid evil any day - because he will fool so many otherwise intelligent people into holding as truth, in the back of their minds, the basic ideas that he had to edit so distortedly to present.

You are right, and this stuff makes me feel sick he had the audacity to call it a documentary. It wasn't a documentary, it wasn't even an opinion piece. It was a distortion.

I'm glad I watched it, gladder I noted I had done so here and that you folks told me what was going on with it. I am normally given to doing research after I view something I find interesting and I probably would have gotten around to it, but meanwhile there I was suggesting people view this film without any kind of warning as to the way it was done.

Sorry, late.

I always send handwritten thank you notes on plain, classic stationary the same day as the interview - then I can be fairly certain they will get the note the following day - any later than that and you're already forgotten. I also copy it if I really like it and store it for the next time I need to come up with the words to fill another one because I hate composing the damn things (now, never - opened own firm this month). However, if I were Mr. Lex, I would type it on nice paper instead of forcing them to decipher the secret code that is his handwriting. I would also use a different size/color paper than 8.5x11 so it doesn't look like another boring cover letter - and it doesn't look like you ripped off your office bond.

The problem I had most recently is when interviewing with 2 people, do they each get a note or one note for both - and if only one note, how can you be sure they both see it and does the most important one get listed first or the one that set up the interview, if different? I figured for 2 they can each get a note, but for more than that, a combo note will suffice - thoughts?

-T(On guns: we have lots here, but I'm not a fan)L

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
No, I'm bitter because they gave the "Best Documentary" Oscar to this fat, flippant bastard who digitally alters speeches and stages events to make his point.

If you like to help repair this travesty, go here .

not7yS

Good luck with that.

TM

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by bilmore
Moore is the worst kind of evil - he's a smart, calculating, lying kind of evil. That's worse than stupid evil any day - because he will fool so many otherwise intelligent people into holding as truth, in the back of their minds, the basic ideas that he had to edit so distortedly to present.

Well, Moore is par for the course. FoxNews is approaching a John Birch meeting, the NYTimes op ed page looks more like a bitter professors' bitchfest, the Post and Daily News will only cover the most intense carnage with no regard to the underlying story, the Wash Post is only interested in sinking politicians to feather its own rep, MSNBC is turning right to steal from Fox, Sy Hersch thinks everybody's a criminal and we're still going to lose the battle of Baghdad, Anne Coulter fancies herself the next Phylis Schlafly, Paul Krugman hates tax cuts but offers no alternative, Bob Herbert is still angry we won the fucking war, Peter Jennings wants to be known as the American talking head of record with the internationalist perspective... seems to me nobody save CNN actually just reports anything anymore. We're coming to a point where everybody will soon be a journalist/editorial/fictionalist. This may not be a bad thing if it stuck to just the media, but the govt has begun to realize that perception makes reality. In 20 years, we may not be sure what the fuck is going on anywhere - we'll have to sift through 80 different websites and then read Reuters, BBC and watch CNN and then come to our own conclusions. Wait a minute... I already do that. Fuck. The swindle's already on and here I am lamenting the obvious. Fuck me. In this regard, taking Moore to task for twisting facts and being dishonest is like handing out speeding tickets at a Nascar event. He's just doing what news entertainment professionals do.

[evenodds]

Originally posted by leagleaze
. . . meanwhile there I was suggesting people view this film without any kind of warning as to the way it was done.

Now, you know why I was less than enthusiastic about the rec.

it's sad really because he used to have interesting things to say, though I have always preferred American Dream over Roger & Me.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

I have two questions:

(1) Is that a putter?!!

(2) Does the next picture in this sequence show a headless spaniel?


That may not even be a golf ball. What sport is this????

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by leagleaze
You are right, and this stuff makes me feel sick he had the audacity to call it a documentary. It wasn't a documentary, it wasn't even an opinion piece. It was a distortion.

I don't have a dog in this fight, as I've seen neither the movie nor the website, and I don't particularly care, but Roger Ebert pointed out that Moore has attempted to answer the critics on his website with affidavits etc., and his critics are now answering the answer etc. And now it's down to dueling blogs, which is what passes for public discourse these days. So if you're interested in knowing whether Moore has answers to these accusations, they're all publicly available, though I'm too lazy to find the URL for you.

In other movie news, "Spider-Man" was a huge disappointment. I'll let you know in about six months whether "Chicago" is any good.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
No, I'm bitter because they gave the "Best Documentary" Oscar to this fat, flippant bastard who digitally alters speeches and stages events to make his point.

If you like to help repair this travesty, go here .

not7yS

Ever seen Sean Hannity speak? I could write endlessly about the myriad reasons this genetic defect is better suited to garbage removal than any sort of discourse, let alone debate. However, I'll leave anyone who's interested to watch his show and let him prove my point again and again.

He's the sort of person who makes those of us with Irish blood cringe because we know there are people sitting around the tube smirking and saying "Dear, remember when I told you the Irish were best suited for manual labor? Well come here and look at this fellow - he's exactly what I meant." Hannity's the sort of person who makes me understand why WASPs tried like hell not to let us into their golf clubs. And what's worse is he makes me sympathize with them.

S(He takes us back two generations at least)D

[SlaveNoMore]

sebastian_dangerfield
... seems to me nobody save CNN actually just reports anything anymore.

I guess then you haven't read Eason Jordan's op-ed in the WSJ detailing how CNN kept mum about Iraq atrocities for over a decade.

Or perhaps you have, and this news whitewash is what you mean by reporting "anything"

not7yS

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally posted by bilmore
Moore is the worst kind of evil - he's a smart, calculating, lying kind of evil. That's worse than stupid evil any day - because he will fool so many otherwise intelligent people into holding as truth, in the back of their minds, the basic ideas that he had to edit so distortedly to present.

Good Lord. Moore may be guilting of being misleading and I don't know why they hell he was even considered for an Oscar (in fact, I don't know why people care enough to try to get it taken away). I figured the movie was like all his other work: an opinion piece where he sneak-attacks people who are unprepared to answer some pretty tough questions. He rarely gives his opponent (and that's what they are, no question) the ability to respond. But I see this all the time in the media nowadays.

Anyway, intelligent people are not fooled by Moore. Intelligent people have formed their opinions on guns already. If you think that I'm any more in favor of a ban on assault and automatic weapons and most handguns after watching the movie, all he's done is fool you.

So, enough with the "evil" rhetoric. Save it for someone who actually fits the description.

TM