 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Family Forum / Marriage / Marriage / May 2007documentaries
For those who think documentarians can take no artistic license, you'll apparently need to strike Ken Burns off your list of documentary makers! http://www.twainquotes.com/burnsmistakes.html Among the "fabrications" and "deceptions" of which he is apparently guilty are: 4. Narration about the death of John Marshall Clemens is accompanied by a photo of Clemens's boyhood home. 12. There are a number of other post-Civil War boat photos used in the river pilot sequence outnumbering the ones that are actually ante-bellum. (you can see I didn't get very far). > For those who think documentarians can take no artistic license, > you'll apparently need to strike Ken Burns off your list of [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > (you can see I didn't get very far). I don't get #4. How is this deceptive? (I don't know the context). Re #12, how easy do you think it is to get real antebellum boats? These look like honest mistakes to me--or at least have a defensible reason--the few I read--like #12. The bigger question to answer is 'what is the purpose of these inaccuracies, if they were/are indeed intentional?' I don't think he's trying to make a political statement, or sway the viewers to loathe or love Clemens..is he???? Perhaps artisitc license is a good term for what Burns did here--I won't argue that point--but the things MM does to twist the facts certainly are way beyond artistic license IMHO. BO > Perhaps artisitc license is a good term for what Burns did here--I won't > argue that point--but the things MM does to twist the facts certainly are > way beyond artistic license IMHO. And the Bush administration has never been known to twist the facts? jen >> Perhaps artisitc license is a good term for what Burns did here--I won't >> argue that point--but the things MM does to twist the facts certainly are [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > jen Of course they have. But I was taught growing up that 'Two wrongs don't make a right'. Bo > >> Perhaps artisitc license is a good term for what Burns did here--I won't > >> argue that point--but the things MM does to twist the facts certainly are [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Bo No, but three rights make a left, if you wait till the next intersection. G  SignatureTo contact me: GGGNH@yahoo.com > No, but three rights make a left, if you wait till the next intersection. Ok, I DO have a pet peeve: people who will make a righthand turn from the wrong lane because they didn't get over to the right lane in time and they are too damn impatient to go through the intersection and get turned around. Or people who stop on the interstate and back up when they realize they've missed their exit. > Or people who stop on the interstate and back up when > they realize they've missed their exit. !!! I think we *all* dislike that move! >> No, but three rights make a left, if you wait till the next intersection. > > Ok, I DO have a pet peeve: me too - other drivers. All of em'. >> No, but three rights make a left, if you wait till the next intersection. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > turned around. Or people who stop on the interstate and back up when > they realize they've missed their exit. Yet another sign of the times... Not only does a H.S. diploma mean almost squat these days, and not only has Driver's Ed nearly disappeared, but people don't even need to know how to drive, anymore. And look at the number who "think" they are "driving", with their cell phones in hand - what a joke... Viva Le Nouveau Age De Enlightenmente. > > No, but three rights make a left, if you wait till the next intersection. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > turned around. Or people who stop on the interstate and back up when > they realize they've missed their exit. I thought a pet peeve was more like, "The neighbor's dog barks too loud." Or, okay, "the person turned from the wrong lane and accidentally ran over my dog." jen > > > No, but three rights make a left, if you wait till the next intersection. > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > jen I get it! Funny. A. (let's see how many times this shows up) > (let's see how many times this shows up) As many as you click "send"! > > (let's see how many times this shows up) > > As many as you click "send"! Well - earlier, they were showing up multiple times without "send" getting clicked. Indeed, the buttons on the posts seemed disabled at that point. So while I put my mouse over "send"- the "send" button didn't click and when I did "click" the mouse - nothing happened - no change in status line. Nada. No "waiting for google.groups" - just nothing. This happens all the time - perhaps 10 times a day on google, but this is the first time that multiple posts have shown up. Right now, when I try to "send" I get the cursor-cross instead of the cursor - so God only knows what'll happen next if I click anyway. Ooo. Goodie. The normal cursor is back - I'll hurry and click NOW. > > Perhaps artisitc license is a good term for what Burns did here--I won't > > argue that point--but the things MM does to twist the facts certainly are [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > jen Every administration has twisted the facts. It's been going on for a long long long time. Longer than recorded history. GGG SignatureTo contact me: GGGNH@yahoo.com > Perhaps artisitc license is a good term for what Burns did here--I won't > argue that point--but the things MM does to twist the facts certainly are > way beyond artistic license IMHO. And the Bush administration has never been known to twist the facts? jen >> Perhaps artisitc license is a good term for what Burns did here--I >> won't [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > And the Bush administration has never been known to twist the facts? "I never had sex with that woman, Monica Lewinski". >>> Perhaps artisitc license is a good term for what Burns did here--I won't >>> argue that point--but the things MM does to twist the facts certainly [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > "I never had sex with that woman, Monica Lewinski". I am not seeing the course of the thread here. It sounds like it went - MM twists the facts beyond artistic license and a reply was made - So does the Bush administration I am wondering how a thread could drift into comparing film maker to the President of the United States of America. >>>> Perhaps artisitc license is a good term for what Burns did >>>> here--I won't [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > I am wondering how a thread could drift into comparing film maker to > the President of the United States of America. Me too, but as long as we're there............... > >>> Perhaps artisitc license is a good term for what Burns did here--I won't > >>> argue that point--but the things MM does to twist the facts certainly [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > I am wondering how a thread could drift into comparing film maker to the > President of the United States of America. Sigh... because art can be commentary on the human condition. jen >> >>> Perhaps artisitc license is a good term for what Burns did here--I >> >>> won't [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > jen That's true. But I don't see how that answers the question. > >> "AllYou!" <ida...@conversent.net> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > That's true. But I don't see how that answers the question.- Hide quoted text - Maybe because you weren't an English Lit major, and I was? :-) jen >> >> "AllYou!" <ida...@conversent.net> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > jen It sounded more like well MM does it, but President Bush does it too. Neener, neener, neener. To me. > >> "shinypenny" <shinypenny0...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > It sounded more like well MM does it, but President Bush does it too. > Neener, neener, neener. To me. You really don't see the literary lesson here? The moral to MM's story? We take politicians for granted, we assume because they are politicians they are telling the truth. Likewise, because it's a documentary, we assume the documentarian is presenting a factual representation. The moral is "don't assume." The moral is that two people can look at the same set of facts, and come up with two different interpretations and two different "truth's." The moral is that politicians - not just film-makers - can also be great story- tellers. jen >> >> "shinypenny" <shinypenny0...@yahoo.com> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > story? We take politicians for granted, we assume because they are > politicians they are telling the truth. I have no idea who the hell would ever do that. Not only has all of history proven that not to be the case, but there's nothing in the definition of a polititcian that remotely suggests any degree of honesty by a person in order to quality as a polititcian. OTOH, the very definition of a documntarian is that they "documnent" the facts and the evidence. They can choose their evidence and events and orther facts as selectively as they wish without regard to balance or impartiality, but what they can't do in oder to fit within the definition of being a documentary filmmaker is lie about the facts, or stage events. > Likewise, because it's a > documentary, we assume the documentarian is presenting a factual > representation. We assume it because it's the very definition of the word, and not because we'd like it to be so. > The moral is "don't assume." The moral is that two > people can look at the same set of facts, and come up with two > different interpretations and two different "truth's." The moral is > that politicians - not just film-makers - can also be great story- > tellers. Assumptions have nothing to do with anything, and it's shocking that an lit major can't see any of it. It's very true that we should not assume that when someone acknowledges that they fit a particular definition, that they actually do so. But if they do purport themselves as fitting a particular definition and they don't then they must be taken to task for that. But if your happy to equate MM as having no more honesty than a politician, then that's fine with me because I've already concluded that he's the same kind of slimy, lying bastard that we all know politicians to be. > I have no idea who the hell would ever do that. Not only has all of > history proven that not to be the case, but there's nothing in the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > OTOH, the very definition of a documntarian is that they "documnent" > the facts and the evidence. As long as you're going to insist on holding to that one single angle of the definition of "documentary," then I cannot have a productive conversation with you. Have a nice day! jen >> I have no idea who the hell would ever do that. Not only has all >> of [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > of the definition of "documentary," then I cannot have a productive > conversation with you. Well, you could if, instead of taking your ball and going home, you actually had a logical argument for why that definition doesn't work. Do you think that a documentarian is defined as someone who makes sh.t up? Have a wonderful and peaceful day! > >> I have no idea who the hell would ever do that. Not only has all > >> of [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Have a wonderful and peaceful day!- On the other related thread, I posted a URL to an online encyclopedia that explains the history of documentaries, and defines the different types. It backs up what I've been saying, that there are two schools of thought when it comes to documentaries: the one school belives the art is in painstaking documenting/recreation of the facts, as objective as possible, with no point of view being inserted by the filmmaker. The other school believes that it's impossible not to insert a point of view; propaganda is included in this second form. BOTH are valid forms of documentary, and have been for a long time, long before MM came on the scene. I've asked you already if you happened to read the link, but you never replied. So I am guessing you did not. Would you like me to find & post the URL again? jen >> >> I have no idea who the hell would ever do that. Not only has >> >> all [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > replied. So I am guessing you did not. Would you like me to find & > post the URL again? Jen, we're posting at cross purposes again. My point is NOT that a documentary must be impartial and objective. I fully accept that fact that a legitimate documentary can be completely biased and push a particular point of view. I've said that many times now. And so with respect to your argument, I fully accept what you said. Now to my point. My point is not that a documentary must be unbiased. My point is that it must "document" the facts. The documentarian can pick only those facts which support his/her agenda, and push those as hard as possible, as long as they do NOT make up any facts. They can even recreate scenes if they wish, except that if it's possible for the viewer to mistake the recreation as actual filming of the actual event, then they should make it clear that it's a recreation. But what they can't do and still fir the definition of documentarian is to make up a fictitious event, and then mislead the viewer into thinking that this particular event actually happened. Do you see how your argument differs from the point I've been trying to make? >> >> "shinypenny" <shinypenny0...@yahoo.com> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > > You really don't see the literary lesson here? Shall I kneel down at your artisic, feet Oh Great Educator? I hate condecension. > The moral to MM's > story? We take politicians for granted, we assume because they are [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > jen Strangely, while that may have been in Moore's story, I did see that in the exchange on this newsgroup at all. > >> "shinypenny" <shinypenny0...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > Shall I kneel down at your artisic, feet Oh Great Educator? I hate > condecension. I wasn't deliberately trying to condescend, and I apologize if it came across that way. I was just getting frustrated because I was trying to get myself out the door, didn't have a lot of coffee in me, and was too rushed to put my thoughts into better words. > > The moral to MM's > > story? We take politicians for granted, we assume because they are [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Strangely, while that may have been in Moore's story, I did see that in the > exchange on this newsgroup at all. That may be... I made that comment on another day, after reading through the other thread, during a moment when my thoughts were going down a certain musing direction. If you think that was bad, you should join me and DH sometime to go to an art gallery! I would probably drive you crazy (and not just him). We'll both look at the same photo, and he'll see a flower, while I'll launch into some detailed esoteric explanation about how it is commentary on global warming and the fleeting nature of human existence, not JUST a flower!!... it's just how my mind works. I am apt to see weird abstractions even in the most concrete of places. jen (snip) > If you think that was bad, you should join me and DH sometime to go to > an art gallery! I would probably drive you crazy (and not just him). [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > existence, not JUST a flower!!... it's just how my mind works. I am > apt to see weird abstractions even in the most concrete of places. Sometimes a flower is just a cigar. > (snip) > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Sometimes a flower is just a cigar. LOL! > (snip) > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Sometimes a flower is just a cigar. Except orchids. Those are really, obviously . . . something else. > (snip) > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Sometimes a flower is just a cigar. Yeah, but I refuse to grow clitoria in my garden, no matter how pretty it is! >> (snip) >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Yeah, but I refuse to grow clitoria in my garden, no matter how pretty it > is! You know, I thought you were making that up, until I googled it! http://www.plantoftheweek.org/week043.shtml > Doug Anderson wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Yeah, but I refuse to grow clitoria in my garden, no matter how pretty it > is! Okay, I confess ... I actually looked "clitoria" up. Casey On May 24, 11:53 am, Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovet...@gmail.com> wrote: > (snip) > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Sometimes a flower is just a cigar. Doug, you smokin' flowers? >> >> "shinypenny" <shinypenny0...@yahoo.com> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 78 lines] > through the other thread, during a moment when my thoughts were going > down a certain musing direction. Emma Anne saw it. The threading on this ... thread is AFU on my server. Maybe there is more up thread that clarifies. > If you think that was bad, you should join me and DH sometime to go to > an art gallery! I would probably drive you crazy (and not just him). [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > jen LOL! >>>>> "shinypenny" <shinypenny0...@yahoo.com> wrote in message >>> [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > > Shall I kneel down at your artisic, feet Oh Great Educator? That's the spirit!! ROFL!! > We take politicians for granted, we assume because they are > politicians they are telling the truth. I don't know anyone over the age of 10 who assumes that politicians tell the truth. On the contrary, most everyone I know assumes that politicians lie to make themselves look good. Way too many half-wits assume that politicians from the other party are usually lying, and politicians from their own party are usually telling the truth, but there's nothing new about that. Alcmaeon wrote, about 2500 years ago, "It is easier to guard against an enemy than against a friend." And it's still true: if you're a Democrat, you're way more likely to swallow Democratic lies than Republican ones, and vice-versa. * As long as my quote engine is running, here are two from _The Devil's Dictionary_: POLITICS, n. A strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles. The conduct of public affairs for private advantage. POLITICIAN, n. An eel in the fundamental mud upon which the superstructure of organized society is reared. When we wriggles he mistakes the agitation of his tail for the trembling of the edifice. As compared with the statesman, he suffers the disadvantage of being alive. , one from Douglas Adams: To summarize, the people who want to lead the government, are, by virtue of wanting to lead, the least qualified to do so. To summarize the summary: people are a problem. , one from Ronald Reagan: Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first. , and one from "thirtysomething": Michael: "They're all liars, anyway." Hope: "Some of them are liars AND scumbags, some of them are just liars." What do these quotes have in common? They seem to indicate that assuming "politicians tell the truth" would be a novelty in the history of government. Darren Provine ! kilroy@elvis.rowan.edu ! http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy "Never believe anything until it's officially denied." -- Margaret Atwood >> We take politicians for granted, we assume because they are >> politicians they are telling the truth. > > I don't know anyone over the age of 10 who assumes that politicians > tell the truth. Well, I think Jimmy Carter did, for the most part. > , one from Douglas Adams: > > To summarize, the people who want to lead the government, are, by > virtue of wanting to lead, the least qualified to do so. To > summarize the summary: people are a problem. I've always enjoyed Douglas Adams satirical take on things, but I tend to agree with the above. For many years I've thought we should give up the idea of allowing people to run for the office of President - in general, the people that want the job are not the ones we need in that position. How about the idea of appointing (as in drafting) a CEO of a well-run corporation to the job and obligating he/she to serve for a period of 6 years? Face it ... we don't really want individuals who are attracted to the job because of its power or prestige. We really need someone who can efficiently run the country and represent us as the world power that we are. Casey [snip] >How about the idea of appointing (as in drafting) a CEO of a well-run >corporation to the job and obligating he/she to serve for a period of 6 >years? Face it ... we don't really want individuals who are attracted to >the job because of its power or prestige. We really need someone who can >efficiently run the country and represent us as the world power that we are. Running a corporation is very different than running the government -- at least, that seems to be the experience of corporate people I've known who've later joined or been appointed to a government agency. A CEO has the ability to make things happen far more quickly and efficiently than his or her counterpart in government. Plus s/he gets to set the agenda -- hopefully, with input from others, but usually with the final say. Compare that to government, where many people have a voice in determining direction -- and there are many competing agendas. Most of the corporate people I've known who've taken government jobs have expressed a lot of frustration with their inability to change things. I've also heard civil servants express *their* frustration with corporate people who come in expecting to shake things up without taking the time to understand how to make things happen in a government agency -- it's a very different process. I'm not saying it's impossible -- for example, I think Michael Bloomberg has grown into a very effective mayor in NYC. It's just that the skills that make someone successful in the corporate world don't necessarily translate into a government role. Barb > How about the idea of appointing (as in drafting) a CEO of a well-run > corporation to the job and obligating he/she to serve for a period of 6 > years? Argh! No no no no no! > Maybe because you weren't an English Lit major, and I was? :-) I suspect Jen of pointing up irony. (Not a lit major, but I took some classes!) >> Maybe because you weren't an English Lit major, and I was? :-) > > I suspect Jen of pointing up irony. (Not a lit major, but I took some > classes!) There must be more in the thread than I am seeing. "Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com>" wrote about some complaints made against Ken Burns's documentaries, and quoted some which were just trivial silliness. Mr Anderson was making a point about how documentaries are not expected to be legal testimony: the creators can legitmately use artistic license to tell their stories, provided they do not substantially misrepresent the truth. If you showed a boat from the 1860s and said "This is the very boat he worked on in the 1840s", that would be unreasonable. But if you're just talking about life on riverboats in the mid-1800s, and the day-to-day basics didn't change from the 1840s to the 1860s (I dunno), then showing a boat from the 1860s while you talk is perfectly sensible. "Bo <b...@cephus.com>" replied saying that while artistic license as used by Ken Burns is okay, the things Michael Moore: > does to twist the facts certainly are way beyond artistic license > IMHO. Okay, you're entitled to your opinion, but if you want anyone to share it you'll need to provide some supporting argument. If you don't want to dig up details, or you lack time to dig up details, there's no legal obligation. You can share all the unsupported opinions you want from now until the Last Judgment if you like. But you can't expect anyone to share those opinions. In reply to Mr Bo's comment, Jen Shinypenny wrote: > And the Bush administration has never been known to twist the facts? Thus slightly derailing the discussion, so far as I can tell. Nothing in what Mr Bo wrote excused fact twisting by anyone ever. He suggested that fact twisting was bad, and Michael Moore had done it, and it was improper for him to do it. I see no reason whatever why George W Bush needed to be brought up at all. Even if he does twist facts intentionally, that wouldn't excuse Michael Moore doing it (if MM does actually do it). Once the discussion was slightly derailed, all we needed was a really ridiculous comment to take it totally off track, and one was provided by "AllYou! <ida...@conversent.net>": > "I never had sex with that woman, Monica Lewinski". The first comment about Bush twisting facts has no bearing whatever on whether Michael Moore twists facts beyond what is reasonable for a documentary maker. The comment about Bill Clinton has no bearing on whether Bush twists facts. So now we've got TWO LEVELS of muddy thinking about irrelevancies gumming up Mr Anderson's original point and Mr Bo's reply. The original topic, you may remember, was: Many complaints about Michael Moore are trivial silliness. We do not expect 100% exactness from documentary makers. Attacking Moore for trivialities is ridiculous. the response was: We don't expect perfection from documentarists, but Michael Moore has sometimes been so careless with facts that he fails to live up to what should be expected from someone who makes a documentary. For good or ill, those were the assertions at issue. Nothing ever said by either George W Bush *or* Bill Clinton has any direct bearing on either Mr Anderson's comment or Mr Bo's reply. Both remarks about the presidents reflect either sloppy thinking or an intentional effort to distract the discussion away from the issues at hand. > I am not seeing the course of the thread here. That's because it's off course. Whatever lies Bush or Clinton may have told, they don't excuse Michael Moore if his movies abuse the notion of "documentary artistic license". It looks to me like this is what happened: 1) Liberal-leaning person notes that some conservative critics of Moore are loony, offering similarly loony criticisms of Ken Burns to illustrate the point. 2) Conservative-leaning person says (without evidence) that Moore is way worse than Burns. 3) Different liberal-leaning person attacks George W Bush, because previous poster was conservative-leaning. 4) Different conservative-leaning person attacks Bill Clinton, because George Bush has been criticised. It's all very consistent with my thesis that political factions serve primarily as cliques for people too old to be in high school. We don't actually have two political parties in the USA: we have one political party with multiple personality disorder. But even though Democrats and Republicans are nearly indistinguishable on many important issues, their various supporters attack each other in vicious terms. Hmm: maybe it's *because* the Ds and Rs are indistinguishable that their supporters feel the need to be so vicious? Could it be that they use the nasty langauge to magnify the trivial differences, so as to make it seem like there's really some principled reason to belong to one party in particular? That would explain a lot. Darren Provine ! kilroy@elvis.rowan.edu ! http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy " From now on, whenever I get the urge to use an offensive word in e-mail I will substitute the name of an offensive politician. I urge you to do the same. The beauty of this approach is that they can't easily ban these new naughty words without changing their own names. I know I could get in trouble for suggesting such a thing, but I don't give a flying Clinton what they think. And if they don't like it they can come over here and kiss my Gingrich." -- Scott Adams Good recap! A minor quibble with your labels here though > 1) Liberal-leaning person notes that some conservative critics of Moore > are loony, offering similarly loony criticisms of Ken Burns to > illustrate the point. a) I consider myself conservative leaning. I believe in avoiding unnecessary government intrusion into people's lives. But I also consider myself liberal leaning in the sense that I would like to be open to new ideas and tolerant of others. b) The Ken Burns criticisms, while seeming loony, came from a Mark Twain geek website. So these are people very interested in Twain and the history around him, and very sensitive to small inaccuracies in that material. So I would characterize them more as single minded (in a way I found amusing) than as loony. > Good recap! > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > consider myself liberal leaning in the sense that I would like to be > open to new ideas and tolerant of others. Blow me down! ha ha-- if you consider yourself conservative leaning, you must think I am Barry Goldwater, George Will, and Newt all rolled into one --on steroids! <smiles> Your 2nd sentence confuses me a bit--perhaps you are a POM--plain ol' moderate? "Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com>" described himself as > [...] conservative leaning. I believe in avoiding unnecessary > government intrusion into people's lives. But I also consider myself > liberal leaning in the sense that I would like to be open to new ideas > and tolerant of others. "Bo <bo@cephus.com>" replied: > Your 2nd sentence confuses me a bit--perhaps you are a POM--plain ol' > moderate? Okay, okay, I apologise, I used sloppy language and this played a part in getting this going. "liberal" <--> "conservative" is LITERALLY a one-dimensional way of thinking, it's a blight on American political dialogue, nobody should talk that way, and I apologise for doing so. An even bigger problem is that the many people use the words to hide what they are really doing. When I was young, a conservative wanted to reduce government spending. In the last few years, some people who call themselves "conservatives" have pushed increasing the size of government and raising spending. In 1995, Newt Gingrich proposed getting rid of the federal Department of Education. It employs thousands of people, spends billions of dollars, and not one of those employees actually teaches a class anywhere. They just shuffle paper. Further, all 50 states have their own departments of education, so the federal one is completely redundant. Gingrich felt we should dump the DoE completely, saving billions in taxpayer dollars and taking no real loss. But some of the people who voted with Gingrich in 1995 then voted with Bush only six years later, nearly doubling the DoE's budget. Did "conservative" change meaning in the space of six years, from "get rid of useless, expensive government programs" to "double the size of useless, expensive government programs"? Did people who ran as "conservatives" just lie about their positions in the hopes of tricking actual conservatives into voting for them? Did people just vote with whatever seemed to be the prevailing winds of popular thinking, having no actual principles? Maybe the truth is somewhere in a pile of things. Whatever the actual reason, I shouldn't have used the words, and I apologise for doing so. People shouldn't vote based on labels: sometimes the carefully-packaged products for sale are mislabeled. * People may be interested in seeing where they fall on this two-dimensional map: http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html It's been posted here before; but I don't know how many people tried it out. Darren Provine ! kilroy@elvis.rowan.edu ! http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less." -- Humpty Dumpty > People may be interested in seeing where they fall on this > two-dimensional map: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > It's been posted here before; but I don't know how many people tried it > out. I"m a straight-out "Left/Liberal". Personal issues score is 80%, Economics issues score is 20%. Sheila >> People may be interested in seeing where they fall on this >> two-dimensional map: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I"m a straight-out "Left/Liberal". Personal issues score is 80%, > Economics issues score is 20%. This echos previous 'political quizzes' I've taken... Libertarian Personal issues 90%, economics 80%. >> People may be interested in seeing where they fall on this >> two-dimensional map: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I"m a straight-out "Left/Liberal". Personal issues score is 80%, > Economics issues score is 20%. Me too. 80% and 30% Tai >> People may be interested in seeing where they fall on this >> two-dimensional map: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Sheila 40%, 80% :) Bo > >> People may be interested in seeing where they fall on this > >> two-dimensional map: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > - Show quoted text - 50%, 60% Vickie >>>> People may be interested in seeing where they fall on this >>>> two-dimensional map: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > 50%, 60% > Vickie Centrist for me, 40%, 30%. It also says, "Centrists pride themselves on keeping an open mind" So pfffft - to some in here!!!! > "Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com>" described himself as >> [...] conservative leaning. I believe in avoiding unnecessary [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > thinking, it's a blight on American political dialogue, nobody should > talk that way, and I apologise for doing so. You are right! I am guilty as well--and I think we probably all are from time to time.... > An even bigger problem is that the many people use the words to hide > what they are really doing. When I was young, a conservative wanted to [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > rid of useless, expensive government programs" to "double the size of > useless, expensive government programs"? Good points. No I don't think the meanings changed over 6 years. I think this is a great argument for term limits. Personal greed and hunger for power makes many politicians abandon the causes/principles that got them elected. > Did people who ran as > "conservatives" just lie about their positions in the hopes of tricking > actual conservatives into voting for them? Did people just vote with > whatever seemed to be the prevailing winds of popular thinking, having > no actual principles? Maybe the truth is somewhere in a pile of > things. Yes--but change 'things' to 'sh.t' and you hit the proverbial nail on the head. > Whatever the actual reason, I shouldn't have used the words, and I > apologise for doing so. People shouldn't vote based on labels: > sometimes the carefully-packaged products for sale are mislabeled. I totally agree. When I vote I NEVER vote straight party ticket--even if every person I voted for happened to be in one party or the other. One size does not fit all--*ever*. I find it troubling that anyone does party-ticket voting. And troubling that the fought-and-died-for right-to-vote is pissed on by millions of supposedly patriotic Americans. And then the very same are the most vocal and whining about results they do not like. Argggghhh! > "Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com>" wrote about some > complaints made against Ken Burns's documentaries, and quoted some which [quoted text clipped - 95 lines] > > Darren Provine ! kilroy@elvis.rowan.edu ! http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy Funny re-cap! :) I bet you would make a fine horse-race annoucer! <smiles> Bo > > For those who think documentarians can take no artistic license, > > you'll apparently need to strike Ken Burns off your list of [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > > > (you can see I didn't get very far). > I don't get #4. How is this deceptive? (I don't know the context). You show someone lived in while you are describing that person's death. It makes it seem like that was the house they lived in while they died. This is the kind of hypercriticism that Moore gets, when people call him deceptive. > Re #12, how easy do you think it is to get real antebellum boats? > > These look like honest mistakes to me--or at least have a defensible > reason--the few I read--like #12. I think they are "honest" in that Ken Burns didn't have an agenda to make people think these post-bellum boats were ante-bellum. He wasn't trying to deceive people. He used the resources he had. But various people here have said that something isn't a documentary unless everything it shows is exactly what happened, and there is no deceptive editing. A viewer, on seeing those boats with the voice over would naturally assume they were ante-bellum. So that is deceptive, although I don't think it is important myself. > The bigger question to answer is 'what is the purpose of these inaccuracies, > if they were/are indeed intentional?' I don't think he's trying to make a > political statement, or sway the viewers to loathe or love Clemens..is > he???? I agree. > Perhaps artisitc license is a good term for what Burns did here--I won't > argue that point--but the things MM does to twist the facts certainly are > way beyond artistic license IMHO. I disagree. Many of the "inaccuracies" in the web site you posted a link to were _exactly_ these sorts of non-deceptive artistic license kind of things. >> > For those who think documentarians can take no artistic license, >> > you'll apparently need to strike Ken Burns off your list of [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > This is the kind of hypercriticism that Moore gets, when people call > him deceptive. No. It's a matter of context and quantity. If Moore is gonna go out there and create fabrications about things that are highly controversial specifically in order to sway people to a particular political conclusion about those very controversial issues, and if he's going to do so blatantly and repeatedly over, and over, and over again, then he's should be taken to the woodshed much more ardently than someone who may have engaged is such mistakes and deceptions to a much lesser degree, and who's intent was to make his subject matter a little more dramatic than it really was. No, that's not to say that Burns should be spared the rod, but it is a matter of perspective, and quantity. > >> > For those who think documentarians can take no artistic license, > >> > you'll apparently need to strike Ken Burns off your list of [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > much lesser degree, and who's intent was to make his subject matter a > little more dramatic than it really was. Agreed. What I don't agree about is that Moore has done what you suggest he did in the above paragraph. >> >> > For those who think documentarians can take no artistic >> >> > license, [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > Agreed. What I don't agree about is that Moore has done what you > suggest he did in the above paragraph. That, at least, is fair. > For those who think documentarians can take no artistic license, > you'll apparently need to strike Ken Burns off your list of [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > (you can see I didn't get very far). And to the extent that he make mistakes, he's sloppy and should be taken to task for that, and to the extent that he purposefully misrepresented the truth, then he should be chastised for it. Are you seriously saying using the "well he did it too" defense? My, my. > > For those who think documentarians can take no artistic license, > > you'll apparently need to strike Ken Burns off your list of [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Are you seriously saying using the "well he did it too" defense? My, > my. Not at all. Read what I say, not what you wish I was saying. I'll explain in words of one syllable below. Several people have said effectively: Moore's movies aren't documentaries because they contain staged scenes (I don't know if they do) and because he does things like say "Charlton Heston came to Denver" (which is true - he did say that and Heston did do it) while showing film of a speech that Heston gave elsewhere. If those sorts of things disqualify a movie from being called a documentary, then apparently one can't use the term "documentary" to describe Ken Burns's movie either. >> > For those who think documentarians can take no artistic license, >> > you'll apparently need to strike Ken Burns off your list of [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > Not at all. Read what I say, not what you wish I was saying. I'll > explain in words of one syllable below. Why do you always get so defensive, and even so angry as to respond as you have? > Several people have said effectively: Moore's movies aren't > documentaries because they contain staged scenes (I don't know if [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > documentary, then apparently one can't use the term "documentary" to > describe Ken Burns's movie either. I'm not surprised that you've tried to mischaracterize the point of my post. After all, I've been able to demonstrate without any doubt on numerous occasions that this kind of smoke and mirrors in which you engage when you feel threatened is simply your style. Here, let me lead you through it in a way that even you won't be able to mischaracterize....... The point of my post which you so transparently tried to misrepresent was that you were relating Moore to Burns in a way that suggested that if Moore was to be dismissed as a documentarian, then arguably the most well respected documentarian of our time should also be dismissed because they both do the same thing. IOW, it's the ole "well he did it too" defense. See it now? It's no surprise to me that you'd attempt to mischaracterize my post as a lack of understanding of what you said, and then go on to simply repeat your point without ever addressing the question I raised (i.e., your motives for equating Burns to Moore in some way). Quite obviously, you chose someone (Burns) who is generally very well respected as a documentary filmmaker, and then you found where someone alleged that he made some factual errors with one of his films. In doing so, it's pretty clear, despite what I know will be your denials, that because a very widely respected documentarian might have engaged in certain activities similar to those of Moore, that this somehow should put Moore and Burns on the same level. Again, I'm sure that you'll deny this, probably even to yourself given your extreme defensiveness, but the point that you're trying so desperately to make is that if unless someone is ready to dismiss Burns (the very well respected documentarian) as a serious documentarian, they must therefore not dismiss Moore as such either. IOW, as I said, it's the ole "well he did it too" defense. So do you see it now? Whether you agree with me about Moore or not, do you now see what my point was, and how completely absurd it was to imply that I didn't understand what you posted? It amazes me that people think you're very precise with words. Sheeeesh. > >> > For those who think documentarians can take no artistic license, > >> > you'll apparently need to strike Ken Burns off your list of [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > because they both do the same thing. IOW, it's the ole "well he did > it too" defense. See it now? That is where you are wrong. It isn't a defense at all, since I don't particularly care whether Moore is considered a documentarian or not. And that is where you continue to mischaracterize what _I'm_ saying. But yes, I'm pointing out that if people wish to considere Moore's movies not to be documentaries because of the sorts of things I mention above, then they are setting the bar for a documentary pretty high. People are free to do that of course. And it's nothing to do with a "defence." >> >> > For those who think documentarians can take no artistic >> >> > license, [quoted text clipped - 77 lines] > not. > And that is where you continue to mischaracterize what _I'm_ saying. How did I mischarachterize anything? I interpret your posts as defending Moore agains those who wish to dismiss him as a serious documentarian, and I gave a full and complete logical argument for my position. And how do you respond? 'No I ditint!' No argument, and no refutation of mine. > But yes, I'm pointing out that if people wish to considere Moore's > movies not to be documentaries because of the sorts of things I > mention above, then they are setting the bar for a documentary > pretty > high. And it is that argument to which I quite clearly responded. How you could conclude that it was that I didn't understand your post is totally beyond me, except for the possibility that you were just being your usual confrontational self. Is that what it was? > People are free to do that of course. > > And it's nothing to do with a "defence." Tell me that you're not resorting to pointing out spelling errors. Tell me that you've not now been reduced to that level. Oh, what am I thinking. Of course you are. :-) Have a nice day! > >> >> > For those who think documentarians can take no artistic > >> >> > license, [quoted text clipped - 83 lines] > position. And how do you respond? 'No I ditint!' No argument, and > no refutation of mine. Let's see. I said what I meant in the first place. You misinterpreted it. I explained it again, twice. You insiste on continuing to misinterpret it. What would you have me do now? I suppose I could start calling you names and impugning your motives, since this is something you seem to feel is worthwhile (judging by your penchant for these activities). But maybe I'll just skip that. >> >> >> > For those who think documentarians can take no artistic >> >> >> > license, [quoted text clipped - 105 lines] > misinterpreted it. I explained it again, twice. You insiste on > continuing to misinterpret it. What would you have me do now? Dougie, Dougie, Dougie........ For someone who's supposed to be so very precise with words, you sure have a hard time grasping concepts that are involved when words are actually put together. Here, let me take you though it........ I agree that you said what you meant. the problem is that you're now denying what you meant. Many here have been attacking Moore, and for the most part, you hid your desire to defend Moore by simply demanding that people fully justify their claims about him. But you finally exposed yourself by defending him when you attempted to equate Moore to arguably the most respected documentarian of our time. And so when I exposed your "meaning" for what it was (i.e., a defense of Moore), you then claimed that it was not a defense, but all you did was to repeat your defense. Nowhere in this repetition did you provide any sort of logical argument to counter my logical argument. So when you say that you "explained it twice", that's terribly imprecise of you. You used more words to say what you originally said, but you never, ever "explained" why my argument that it was a defense of Moore doesn't hold up. Do you now see the different between 'explain' and 'repeat'? Shall I 'explain' that difference to you? :-) > I suppose I could start calling you names and impugning your > motives, > since this is something you seem to feel is worthwhile (judging by > your penchant for these activities). But maybe I'll just skip that. You just proved that you couldn't help yourself. LOL! Nice. (snip) > I agree that you said what you meant. the problem is that you're now > denying what you meant. Many here have been attacking Moore, and for > the most part, you hid your desire to defend Moore by simply demanding > that people fully justify their claims about him. But you finally > exposed yourself by defending him when you attempted to equate Moore > to arguably the most respected documentarian of our time. But of course all this is in your head. I'm not defending Moore. And I'm not equating him with Burns. Yours is a stupid rhetorical style. Attribute things to someone you wish to discredit that he hasn't said, and then discredit those things. It will fool some people some of the time, as of course will simply lying outright, which is similar. q > (snip) > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > And > I'm not equating him with Burns. Actually, neither of those is correct as the following will demonstrate: Moore is being attacked by those who say he should be dismissed as a documentarian. You gave evidence that Burns does some of the same things which has been given as evidence of what Moore has done. Therefore, to that extent, you HAVE equated Burns to Moore. I'm surprised you think that's not obvious. And you already admitted that your purpose in doing so was to argue that if Moore should be dismissed as a documentarian, then so should arguably the most respected documentarian of our time (i.e., Burns). I'm also surprised that you don't now see this as a defense of Moore, even if you didn't consciously "mean" it to be that. It is what it is no matter whether you meant it or not. After all, let's be precise, shall we? > Yours is a stupid rhetorical style. That comes pretty close to the kind of name calling to which you said you would not resort. No, technically it isn't, but it does come pretty close, doesn't it? After all, stupid is as stupid does, right? So then is it name calling or not? Let's be precise. :-) I really do think that your defensiveness results in perceived attacks where there are none, and then this is what leads to your anger. Just an observation. Have a nice day! |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.