GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum

GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum (https://gfy.com/index.php)
-   Fucking Around & Business Discussion (https://gfy.com/forumdisplay.php?f=26)
-   -   Michael Moore . . . what a pig. (https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=746742)

aico 06-28-2007 01:02 AM

He's smarter than you
Makes more money than you
Is more important than you
Has done more than you
He will continue to do more than you

and he's fat... but at least he can lose the weight.

J. Falcon 06-28-2007 01:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Due (Post 12671055)
He would be shot, killed and put to prison.


:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

beemk 06-28-2007 01:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony404 (Post 12670741)
how many academy awards you got?

someone strike a nerve?

Bdiddy 06-28-2007 01:20 AM

lol...why call him fat?

"Paging Ann Coulter to remark on Clinton's chubby thighs...paging Ann Coulter"

Porn Farmer 06-28-2007 01:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baddog (Post 12670788)
Documentary? Your definition and mine must differ significantly. Mine is: Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.

You have absolutely no idea what a documentary is.

Objective? No person is capable of objectivity. It's an aburd suggestion. Everyone has a perspective. A good documentary takes a point of view and argues it well. That is what Moore does and he does it very well.

The idea that a documentary should be "objective" is laughable.

Nore 06-28-2007 01:38 AM

I like how everyone uses his weight as an insult. His movies are insightful and pretty damn on point. Deal with it. Whether you like him or not, you'd better get used to him because he's not going anywhere.

baddog 06-28-2007 01:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Porn Farmer (Post 12671156)
You have absolutely no idea what a documentary is.

Yeah, me and the American Heritage Dictionary are clueless.

baddog 06-28-2007 01:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nore (Post 12671195)
Whether you like him or not, you'd better get used to him because he's not going anywhere.

He will be dead within 5 years . . . I can wait it out.

Tempest 06-28-2007 01:42 AM

baddog cracks me up sometimes..

Porn Farmer 06-28-2007 01:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baddog (Post 12671197)
Yeah, me and the American Heritage Dictionary are clueless.

Yeah, you are:

Quote:

Documentary texts are supposedly those which aim to document reality, attempting veracity in their depiction of people, places and events. However, the process of mediation means that this is something of a oxymoron, it being impossible to re-present reality without constructing a narrative that may be fictional in places. Certainly, any images that are edited cannot claim to be wholly factual, they are the result of choices made by the photographer on the other end of the lens. Nonetheless, it is widely accepted that categories of media texts can be classed as non-fiction, that their aim is to reveal a version of reality that is less filtered and reconstructed than in a fiction text. Such texts are often constructed from a particular moral or political perspective, and cannot therefore claim to be objective. Other texts purport simply to record an event, although decisions made in post-production mean that actuality is edited, re-sequenced and artificially framed. The documentary maker generally establishes a thesis before starting the construction of their text, and the process of documentary-making can be simply the ratification of their idea. Perhaps, to misquote Eco, the objectivity of the text lies not in the origin but the destination?

The documentary genre has a range of purposes, from the simple selection and recording of events (a snapshot or unedited holiday video) to a polemic text that attempts to persuade the audience into a specific set of opinions (Bowling For Columbine). Audiences must identify that purpose early on and will therefore decode documentary texts differently to fictional narratives.

Modes of Documentary

In his 2001 book, Introduction to Documentary (Indiana University Press), Bill Nichols defines the following six modes of documentary

* The Poetic Mode ('reassembling fragments of the world', a transformation of historical material into a more abstract, lyrical form, usually associated with 1920s and modernist ideas)
* The Expository Mode ('direct address', social issues assembled into an argumentative frame, mediated by a voice-of-God narration, associated with 1920s-1930s, and some of the rhetoric and polemic surrounding WW2)
* The Observational Mode (as technology advanced by the 1960s and cameras became smaller and lighter, able to document life in a less intrusive manner, there is less control required over lighting etc, leaving the social actors free to act and the documentarists free to record without interacting with each other)
* The Participatory Mode (the encounter between film-maker and subject is recorded, as the film-maker actively engages with the situation they are documenting, asking questions of their subjects, sharing experiences with them. Heavily reliant on the honesty of witnesses)
* The Reflexive Mode (demonstrates consciousness of the process of reading documentary, and engages actively with the issues of realism and representation, acknowledging the presence of the viewer and the modality judgements they arrive at. Corresponds to critical theory of the 1980s)
* The Performative Mode (acknowledges the emotional and subjective aspects of documentary, and presents ideas as part of a context, having different meanings for different people, often autobiographical in nature)

These roughly correspond to developmental phases in the genre, when new generations of documentary makers have challenged the forms and conventions that have gone before, and re-invented what documentary means for them.

aico 06-28-2007 01:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baddog (Post 12671197)
Yeah, me and the American Heritage Dictionary are clueless.

So what facts are you disputing in Sicko? If you haven't seen it, it is not the same bullshit like F911. There is actually very little about America in it, it's more about what other countries offer.

GreyWolf 06-28-2007 01:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Porn Farmer (Post 12671156)
You have absolutely no idea what a documentary is.

Stop being subtle *lol*

HomerSimpson 06-28-2007 04:29 AM

I like to watch his movies...
He tries to make people think about what is going on or what happened...
and that's not an easy task...

PS: Take a look at movie/documentary "The Corporation",
and if that dosen't make you think than you must be a total idiot...

tony286 06-28-2007 04:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Porn Farmer (Post 12671156)
You have absolutely no idea what a documentary is.

Objective? No person is capable of objectivity. It's an aburd suggestion. Everyone has a perspective. A good documentary takes a point of view and argues it well. That is what Moore does and he does it very well.

The idea that a documentary should be "objective" is laughable.

Thank you someone who knows, I read a book on making Documentaries and that was one of the myths is that a documentary has to be fair and balanced and objective it doesnt.
Also want to know if someone is hitting a mark? If they start producing hatch jobs to counteract the work, there is a good chance the original work wasnt bullshit. You dont go after bullshit, thats why there are no I hate Ann Coulter documentaries.

StuartD 06-28-2007 04:38 AM

So now we're judging people by their weight?
You must really hate a lot of people.

Viowatch 06-28-2007 05:13 AM

I'm not fat, im just big boned who love watching movies decaying on my couch! Natural lubeeee

http://uglydemocrats.com/democrats/U...oore-pizza.jpg

NTM 06-28-2007 05:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony404 (Post 12670741)
how many academy awards you got?

http://biboz.net/humor/piss-owned.jpg

MattO 06-28-2007 05:46 AM

Argumentum ad hominem (argument directed at the person).
This is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself. The most obvious example of this fallacy is when one maligns the character of another (e.g, "Michael Moore is a fat pig!") A more typical manifestation of argumentum ad hominem is attacking a source of information -- for example, responding to a quotation from Richard Nixon on the subject of free trade with China by saying, "We all know Nixon was a liar and a cheat, so why should we believe anything he says?"

suesheboy 06-28-2007 05:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J. Falcon (Post 12670833)
Michael Moore:

-Bush is to blame for destroying Irak, the deaths of civilians and soldiers.
-Bush is to blame for the scale of the disaster as a result of his administration's policies and actions
- Bush is to blame for lack of organization going into the war.
- America's healthcare systems has sever problems.
- America's gunlaws are a joke.

Diehard Republicans:


- Moore is fat.

Post of the week

Fabien 06-28-2007 06:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baddog (Post 12670853)
Of course you do, you are Canadian.

I thought that was a rule.

Fuck you asshole

nico-t 06-28-2007 06:54 AM

im starting to think that stickyfingerz is baddog's bastard son, they both have the ignorance gene

stickyfingerz 06-28-2007 07:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nico-t (Post 12672018)
im starting to think that stickyfingerz is baddog's bastard son, they both have the ignorance gene

Im starting to think Nico makes wooden shoes and lives close to a tulip farm...

directfiesta 06-28-2007 07:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays (Post 12670874)
jesus.. a guy states the obvious... that michael moore is a slob and somehow its suddenly about bush and iraq and fox news.

haha

Baddog brought Bush in ...

Read the original post :2 cents:

nico-t 06-28-2007 07:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stickyfingerz (Post 12672042)
Im starting to think Nico makes wooden shoes and lives close to a tulip farm...

wow... i never heard that before from you, I am just baffled by your creativity :1orglaugh

Peaches 06-28-2007 07:22 AM

I saw him on Leno the other night. Amazing. The guy doesn't just want government provided universal care, he wants to get rid of private health insurance. The funny thing is that IF that were to happen, he'd be one of the last people ever treated if he has problems related to his weight.

Meanwhile, one of my best friends had a mass on her ovary they found last week, it was removed yesterday, isn't cancer (YAY!) and she will be out of the hospital by Monday. With nothing but a "suspect" mass, I question the people talking about how long it takes to get care here in the US.

At the same time, our largest government run hospital here in GA may possibly close due to lack of funds and horrid mismanagement.

Yeah, bring me the government to take care of me, the private system just sucks /sarcasm

aico 06-28-2007 07:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peaches (Post 12672103)
I saw him on Leno the other night. Amazing. The guy doesn't just want government provided universal care, he wants to get rid of private health insurance. The funny thing is that IF that were to happen, he'd be one of the last people ever treated if he has problems related to his weight.

Meanwhile, one of my best friends had a mass on her ovary they found last week, it was removed yesterday, isn't cancer (YAY!) and she will be out of the hospital by Monday. With nothing but a "suspect" mass, I question the people talking about how long it takes to get care here in the US.

At the same time, our largest government run hospital here in GA may possibly close due to lack of funds and horrid mismanagement.

Yeah, bring me the government to take care of me, the private system just sucks /sarcasm

Maybe you should watch the movie :2 cents:

tranza 06-28-2007 07:28 AM

Here we go again....

jonesonyou 06-28-2007 07:32 AM

He looks like he has lost weight since his last movie.

TheSenator 06-28-2007 07:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peaches (Post 12672103)
I saw him on Leno the other night. Amazing. The guy doesn't just want government provided universal care, he wants to get rid of private health insurance. The funny thing is that IF that were to happen, he'd be one of the last people ever treated if he has problems related to his weight.

Meanwhile, one of my best friends had a mass on her ovary they found last week, it was removed yesterday, isn't cancer (YAY!) and she will be out of the hospital by Monday. With nothing but a "suspect" mass, I question the people talking about how long it takes to get care here in the US.

At the same time, our largest government run hospital here in GA may possibly close due to lack of funds and horrid mismanagement.

Yeah, bring me the government to take care of me, the private system just sucks /sarcasm

You should really watch the movie. It may not change your position but it will definitely raise questions.

Peaches 06-28-2007 07:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aico (Post 12672108)
Maybe you should watch the movie :2 cents:

I will. But I doubt seriously it will be any less slanted than his other movies and Gore's movie - all which I was told to "just watch and you will change your mind" - never happened. I get my info from MANY different sources and most importantly, personal experiences.

But are you saying he's advocating private in addition to government health insurance in the movie but then says get rid of private health insurance during an interview?

crazies 06-28-2007 07:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Casa Nova (Post 12670829)
I enjoy his work. to attack him on his weight shows your character.

Yup classless but hey it boosts his post count :1orglaugh

timberlands 06-28-2007 07:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J. Falcon (Post 12670937)
ReWasn't Ann Coulter in that movie? That should say enough about it lol!


Ann Coulter needs to be shot.. I think someone will kill that bitch soon.

Project-Shadow 06-28-2007 07:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peaches (Post 12672103)
The funny thing is that IF that were to happen, he'd be one of the last people ever treated if he has problems related to his weight.

Please feel free to elaborate.

BoyAlley 06-28-2007 08:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baddog (Post 12670766)
I did not know people ate those things. They must be very fattening.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Tom_PM 06-28-2007 08:08 AM

Even if Moore wants to abolish private insurance, I dont think any actual candidates plans include doing that.

Was pretty funny on Leno, his comment about the NBC censors, lol.


oh yeah and he's overweight.. I wonder if he realises it? Poor fella ;)

BigCashCrew 06-28-2007 08:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baddog (Post 12670788)
Documentary? Your definition and mine must differ significantly. Mine is: Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.

I have yet to hear of anything he wrote that had that description.

I agree 100%. His 'documentaries' are his views. You never see 2 sides of the story.

swampthing 06-28-2007 08:18 AM

what a hairy old ugly fucker you are baddog.

If there was an ugly contest on gfy, you would be a contender.

ContentSHOOTER 06-28-2007 08:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by swampthing (Post 12672331)
what a hairy old ugly fucker you are baddog.

If there was an ugly contest on gfy, you would be a contender.

Now thats mean:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:thumbsup

myboringlife 06-28-2007 08:23 AM

i love how moore ruffles everyones feathers and gets them talking
open up the mouths and open up some minds

when all these authoratative governmental type peoples get all wigged out it makes me wonder what they are so afraid of

polish_аristocrat 06-28-2007 08:35 AM

LOL

baddog is calling someone else ugly?

say it aint so!

:1orglaugh

Juilan 06-28-2007 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MattO (Post 12671859)
Argumentum ad hominem (argument directed at the person).
This is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself. [snip]

This deserves a second read.

escorpio 06-28-2007 08:39 AM

The only movie of his I've seen is "Bowling for Columbine" and it was filled with so much bullshit I've never bothered to watch another.

swampthing 06-28-2007 08:52 AM

anyone who hates Michael Moore, is a piece of shit.

this thread can die now.

Tom_PM 06-28-2007 08:58 AM

Thats ok, even the assault weapons ban was allowed to expire during the pube lickin red herring debate over a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

As a country we are so over crazy kids shooting up schools. I guess.. right virginia tech? Gun laws are fine right? Awesome.

So Bowling for Columbine got people talking for a while.. but the gays..... ohhhhhh they're teh scary!

Now I'm off to open a new bank account and get a free rifle!!!

CDSmith 06-28-2007 08:59 AM

Moore's films are worth watching, for information and at least appreciating that perspective he puts forth. But anyone who sits there mindlessly eating up every point Moore tries to make without acknowledging or realizing that some of them are blatantly twisted "facts" is the embodiment of what a true sheep is.

Some of what the guy has to say has merit, only the most close-minded of the right wing camp disagree with that. But some of it is downright bias slanted agenda-having tripe. Some choose to eat it up with a spoon, others know enough to keep themselves grounded and their opinions in perspective.



Now keep this thread going. The dynamic duo are dying to know what GFY'ers are going to say next...


http://www.thewinnipegpages.com/foru...1162685385.jpg

Tom_PM 06-28-2007 09:03 AM

LOL great pic and good point! Never look to someone else to feed you an "opinion". Thats yours to form and if you dont feel like reading both sides of a debate, it's your own fault :P
But expecting some media outlets or Michael Moore to be balanced or fair (or that they HAVE to be or SHOULD be), is unrealistic.

spunkmister 06-28-2007 09:16 AM

I dunno but I know if I looked like a hobo I wouldnt be commenting on what someone else looks like.

nico-t 06-28-2007 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spunkmister (Post 12672601)
I dunno but I know if I looked like a hobo I wouldnt be commenting on what someone else looks like.

:1orglaugh

escorpio 06-28-2007 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CDSmith (Post 12672515)
Moore's films are worth watching, for information and at least appreciating that perspective he puts forth. But anyone who sits there mindlessly eating up every point Moore tries to make without acknowledging or realizing that some of them are blatantly twisted "facts" is the embodiment of what a true sheep is.

*applause*

D 06-28-2007 09:37 AM

His body proportions aside, "Sicko" (a film that did meet your definition, baddog) flipped my view on health care. I used to oppose the idea of Universal Health Care.

Frankly, I didn't realize that some people had it so bad. Nor did I realize that there were "uninsurable" people in the U.S... including people that acted as American heroes in the face of disaster.

We live in what's supposed to be the pinnacle of human civilization to date... and now I'm being told because Joe Blow has diabetes, he's fucked on medical costs for life?

Fuck that shit. Everyone's entitled to health care.

Socialize the stuff.


As far as Moore goes... I lost a good deal of respect for him in "Bowling for Columbine"... especially in the way he treated Charlton Heston in the end - rather uncalled for, imho...

But his most recent work is solid stuff.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:44 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc123