Debate : 24433


Off-Topic / Debate / 24433

Fair use and allusion? —Dave Schuler

Ray Bradbury is fired up about (URL) title of Michael Moore's forthcoming film.> Regardless of your opinion of Moore or of Bradbury, it seems to me that this complaint is largely based on nothing. Bradbury's (URL) 451> is a copyrighted work, to be (...) (20 years ago, 21-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Fair use and allusion? —Dave Schuler

(...) If I knew (URL) how to spell,> I would have gotten (URL) link right.> Sorry about that! (20 years ago, 21-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Fair use and allusion? —John Neal

(...) Perhaps if MM was addressing Bradbury's work, which I believe isn't the case. Basically, MM merely ripped off the title for punch/pun effect, and so is profitting at the expense of Bradbury's IP. As an aside, are you asserting that Farenheit (...) (20 years ago, 21-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Fair use and allusion? —Dave Schuler

(...) Well, news programs constantly use punch/pun titles, and no one complains about it (except when the torrent of stupid puns overwhelms the discourse (such as when Trent Lott pined for the days of segregation: "Lott of Trouble," "Lott of (...) (20 years ago, 21-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Fair use and allusion? —John Neal

(...) Hmmm, seems this case is different. Perhaps because MM choose it for his title. I'm sure I'd have a difficult time starting up a department store chain called "Wall to Wall Mart", or a toy company called "Lay-Go" There is a definite connection (...) (20 years ago, 21-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Fair use and allusion? —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) But isn't this the difference between Trade Mark and Copyright? The have different names because they ahve different rules. Chris (20 years ago, 21-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Fair use and allusion? —David Koudys

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote: <snip> (...) Moore has stated numerous times, both in articles I've read and interviews that I've seen-- F451 is the temperature at which paper burns--the book is about supression of literature F9/11 is (...) (20 years ago, 21-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Fair use and allusion? —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) I read an article (might have been by Roger Ebert) that suggested that this time, Moore used real facts. I wonder if he caught too much heat over Bowling for Columbine for which he seems to have made a bunch of stuff up. Chris (20 years ago, 21-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Fair use and allusion? —Larry Pieniazek

(...) No, it's based on common courtesy, or the lack thereof on the part of Moore. Farenheit 911 is so obviously a takeoff on Farenheit 451 that it's not really questionable that Moore intended to rip off the name recognition Bradbury has earned for (...) (20 years ago, 21-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Fair use and allusion? —Dave Schuler

(...) Since common courtesy is in the eye of the beholder, and since a title can certainly be spoofed without seeking the indulgence of the title's holder, then Bradbury is left with nothing but sour grapes. Sorry, Ray, but that's how it goes in the (...) (20 years ago, 21-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Fair use and allusion? —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Why? Is it ad hominem against short sellers to point out that when short interst is high is often a good time to buy stock? (1) It is not. It is merely an observation of a useful negative correlation. Same thing holds here, Moore is a liar and (...) (20 years ago, 21-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Fair use and allusion? —Dave Schuler

(...) Because you are, in the post-at-hand, dismissing causes solely because Moore supports them. You may have additional reasoning that you haven't shared here, but since it's not yet been introduced in this discussion, it's irrelevant. Although (...) (20 years ago, 21-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Fair use and allusion? —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Isn't that exactly what Larry is warning against? One of us is missing something because it sounds like you (Dave!) are saying "Larry, you're wrong because what you just said is true." Chris (20 years ago, 21-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Fair use and allusion? —Larry Pieniazek

(...) No I'm not. Reread what you cited. "tends to suggest" is hardly Summarily Dismissed. Further, being wrong about an issue or cause is not the same as dismissing the issue or cause. I dismiss his opinions about issues (for valid cause since he's (...) (20 years ago, 21-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Fair use and allusion? —Larry Pieniazek

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek wrote: (snip)... because there's no need to repeat it, especially if it goes unanswered by Dave!(1) But, tangentially related, here's a story (URL) which some conservative group apparently wants to block (...) (20 years ago, 24-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Fair use and allusion? —John Neal

(...) I think they have a case. How would a commercial promoting a movie that criticizes a political candidate differ in kind from a commercial criticizing a political candidate paid for by a political opponent? And besides, the group is only (...) (20 years ago, 24-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Fair use and allusion? —Larry Pieniazek

(...) True, they very well might, as the law is written. But it's beside the point. 'd have more respect for them if they came out against the law instead of using it against their opponents. Just as I said I'd have more respect for Clinton if he (...) (20 years ago, 24-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Fair use and allusion? —Dave Schuler

(...) By that reasoning, FoxNews, the National Register, and The Wall Street Journal should likewise be regulated as pro-Bush political commercials. (...) Are they? I haven't heard that--do you have a citation? And even if the DNC is buying tickets, (...) (20 years ago, 24-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Fair use and allusion? —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Two points 1) Some of the stuff that's one link away from that website talks about conspiracies of Illuminati and Zionists and etc to impose a New World Order. I'm not sure how seriously that site's going to be taken based on that particular (...) (20 years ago, 24-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Fair use and allusion? —Scott Arthur

(...) Wow that's a 1st. My firewall thinks that site is too "aggressive" for my innocent eyes... Dave, are you trying to radicalise us? Scott A (...) (20 years ago, 25-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Fair use and allusion? —Dave Schuler

(...) Heh. No--I only found the site at all because some well-meaning activist left a copy of the organization's newsletter on my windshield, and I was so horrified by the xenophobia and isolationism that I couldn't resist visiting the site itself. (...) (20 years ago, 25-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Fair use and allusion? —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I misunderstood what you meant by "serious" then, or you misused the word. (20 years ago, 25-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Fair use and allusion? —Dave Schuler

(...) Here's the bit in question, if I'm reading you correctly: Stop by the website of the American Nationalist Union if you want to see some serious, non-Democrat criticism of Dubya. My use of "serious" in this context coincides with (URL) this (...) (20 years ago, 25-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Fair use and allusion? —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I'd agree with this, it's not in contention. (since I am one of the members of the set of people you describe) (...) Fair enough. I took your meaning as: "to be taken seriously by others" which I think is a reasonable meaning to have taken, (...) (20 years ago, 25-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Fair use and allusion? —John Neal

(...) (snip) (...) I think your analogy is faulty. The group is specifically concerned about TV commercial time. (...) I can't remember where I heard this, and my attempts to locate the info were unsuccessful. Let me get back to you on that if I (...) (20 years ago, 25-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Fair use and allusion? —Dave Schuler

(...) Ah, I see. Sorry. I thought you meant that the group opposed the airing of the film itself, rather than the commercials advertising for the film. I'll need to think about that. (...) Moore's actions may collaterally support Kerry, but Moore (...) (20 years ago, 25-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Fair use and allusion? —John Neal

(...) They are a part of it only insofar as we have started to fight back. We did not begin this war. (...) Perhaps, but minors are not those people. JOHN (20 years ago, 25-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Fair use and allusion? —Dave Schuler

(...) Beg pardon? The war in Iraq? Dubya absolutely did begin that war, and he is directly and personally responsible for every death and injury resulting from it. (...) If the quagmire lasts as long as it is likely to last, then those minors are (...) (20 years ago, 25-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Fair use and allusion? —David Koudys

(...) You can rewrite history all you want but your adminisgtration *did* start this war--The US invaded Iraq. Iraq being a sovereign nation at the time that made no direct threats towards the US, no matter what the US administration wanted the (...) (20 years ago, 25-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Fair use and allusion? —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) And besides, we started that war too. (...) I'm pretty sure that John _does_ mean they started it with 9/11. To claim that there were no Iraqis involved really misses the point, I think. See, it was perpetrated on us by those dirty, little, (...) (20 years ago, 26-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Fair use and allusion? —John Neal

(...) Speaking of rewriting history.... (...) I meant that we finally started fighting back with 9-11. (...) Well, Chris, I guess you are entitled to your opinion, no matter how stupid and offensive it is. JOHN (20 years ago, 26-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Fair use and allusion? —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) You gotta love the friendliest place on the internet... Chris (20 years ago, 26-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Fair use and allusion? —John Neal

(...) YOU: "See, it was perpetrated on us by those dirty, little, brown people from (flutters hand in silly gesture) over there. I mean, come on...they all look and sound alike. So you see, we're justified to attack any nation full of brown people (...) (20 years ago, 27-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Fair use and allusion? —David Koudys

(...) I like your idea of fighting back--Larry punches me in the face so, using 'John Logic', I'd punch, well, John in the face. Iraq didn't provoke you. There were no Iraqi's responsible for 9/11. There were, however, a large number of Saudis. Iraq (...) (20 years ago, 27-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Fair use and allusion? —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Um, I wasn't even there! Soo, do you have a cite for that???(1) (grins, ducks, runs). (...) 1 - that's my roundabout way of admitting that maybe, just maybe, a valid point has been made by Dave! (20 years ago, 27-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Fair use and allusion? —John Neal

(...) You are either not listening or being deliberately obtuse. We did not start a war with the people of Iraq; we simply deposed their oppressive government whom we perceived as a potential threat. We are fighting for Iraq, not against Iraq. Isn't (...) (20 years ago, 27-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Fair use and allusion? —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) No. And the "no" answer should be obvious because clearly a great deal of the world clearly thinks it isn't obvious. We are fighting for what Bush's crowd thinks is "our" (U.S.) interests, or would like us to believe is our (no quotes) (...) (20 years ago, 27-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Fair use and allusion? —John Neal

(...) "A great deal"?, or mostly France and Germany (who had national interests in seeing SH remain in power-- at the expense of the Iraqi people). (...) I think everyone would agree that the free flow of oil is in the best interests of our country (...) (20 years ago, 28-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Fair use and allusion? —Ross Crawford

(...) That seems to imply you think the current war wasn't a legitimate opportunity. But I know that can't be right... ROSCO (20 years ago, 28-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Fair use and allusion? —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Name all those that you feel see it as "obvious", subtract that from everyone else, and you will have "a great deal". (...) Seems obvious even to you that is NOT about freeing the people of Iraq, but controlling the flow of oil (which was (...) (20 years ago, 28-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Fair use and allusion? —John Neal

(...) Fine; put it this way: there are a great deal of countries on both sides. Saying "the world clearly thinks it isn't obvious" is a gross distortion. (...) Not controlling the flow of oil (or do you have cites for that?), but enabling the free (...) (20 years ago, 2-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Fair use and allusion? —Ross Crawford

(...) Oh well, I guess the US should just try to take over the whole world now - they have no more credibility to lose. ROSCO (20 years ago, 2-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Fair use and allusion? —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) John's right. Haliburton will make it's money just from infrastructure contracts, the oil in this case is almost secondary. And anyway, the puppet democrazy that we establish isn't going to be hostile to us even if the people are. So we'll get (...) (20 years ago, 2-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Fair use and allusion? —John Neal

(...) Awww. "Haliburton" again???? (...) Awww. More "puppet" talk? (...) We always could, even from SH if we wanted! (...) But that is precisely my point-- OBL was acting independently from the policies of his country, so equating the nationality of (...) (20 years ago, 2-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Fair use and allusion? —Scott Arthur

(...) No. We replaced an errant CIA stooge with a compliant one. ;) (...) Read (URL): Many Iraqis believe the decision to launch military action against the regime of Saddam Hussein was unwarranted, according to a poll by Oxford Research (...) (20 years ago, 5-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Fair use and allusion? —Dave Schuler

(...) Actually, it's not Haliburton again. It's Haliburton, still. This is hardly an over-and-done-with matter, no matter how much Conservatives, Neo-Cons, and the administration might wish it were. (URL) This> is worth reading because it provides (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Fair use and allusion? —Scott Arthur

(...) The last time I looked Bush: had ~140,000 troops in Iraq. had installed a dictator in iraq. was conducting show trials there. If that is not control, what is? (...) ...and where is that oil flowing to? Your "SUV" perhaps? (...) I'm not (...) (20 years ago, 2-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Fair use and allusion? —John Neal

(...) At the request of the sovereign, democratic nation of Iraq. (...) Look again. You'll see elections are on the horizon-- a concept quite foreign to dictators. (...) I have no response to the ignorance of this one. (...) If that is not the (...) (20 years ago, 2-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Fair use and allusion? —Pedro Silva

(...) Sovereign, maybe, democratic no way. At least until proper elections take place, Iraq is still a technical dictatorship. So call it whatever else you want to at this stage. (...) You may be right, but I wouldn't be so vehement in condemning (...) (20 years ago, 2-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

I fear we are about to create yet another martyr. —Scott Arthur

(...) My comment was also meant to cover expedient “trial” of the chap caught abusing prisoners in Iraq… I think it lasted ~1 hour. (...) I don't have time to list my concerns about SH’s appearance yesterday. It is suffice to say that I have yet to (...) (20 years ago, 2-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: I fear we aren't playing fair —Don Heyse

(...) Fair? What for? He cheats at everything, and (URL) here's the proof>. Enjoy, (20 years ago, 7-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: I fear we aren't playing fair —Ross Crawford

(...) And besides, the US isn't into fair trials for terrorism suspects, why would they worry about a fair trial for SH? And if the US isn't worried, why should Iraq??? ROSCO (20 years ago, 7-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Ignoring the proof that's right in front of you. —Don Heyse

(...) You didn't even look at (URL) the proof>, did you? (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Ignoring the proof that's right in front of you. —Ross Crawford

(...) Yes, I did. But I'm not sure what my browsing habits have to do with the topic at hand? ROSCO (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Ignoring the proof that's right in front of you. —Don Heyse

(...) Well, perhaps you should've replied directly to Scott, because you completely ignored what I had to say. Do you often speak just to hear the sound of your own voice? (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Ignoring the proof that's right in front of you. —Ross Crawford

(...) Holy crap, I'm sorry I didn't conform *EXACTLY* to some strict unwritten forum rule of who should answer to who in what threads. Whatever. ROSCO (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Ignoring the proof that's right in front of you. —Don Heyse

(...) Liar. You're not sorry. You did it on purpose because you're one dimensional and have no sense of humor. (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Sarcasm —Ross Crawford

(...) Last I heard it's a humourous device. It was present in my last post, and (URL) this post>. Maybe you missed it? I guess maybe different people have different senses of humour. <SARCASM> I'd certainly never accuse you of not having a sense of (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Sarcasm —Don Heyse

(...) From the internet. <www.cogsci.princeto...-bin/webwn Sarcasm: witty language used to convey insults or scorn>. Hee, hee. Don't know how I could have missed the insults and scorn. But you're right, I'm wrong. I see you are a funny guy after (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Sarcasm —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I think this might not be formatted quite right, I think you need to put the http:// part on the front or else LUGNET thinks it is a relative link (shifted to plaintext so you could see it, but go upthread and try clicking on it to see what (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

An apology —Don Heyse

(...) Ah perfect. Everyone seems distracted with BrickLinkGate, so.. I think it's long past time for me to take Larry's advice and "play nice". Yes, I admit it. I behaved like a total jerk when I posted to this thread way back in July (and probably (...) (20 years ago, 24-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: An apology —Larry Pieniazek

(...) We all know it is always difficult to apologise, even a day, a week or a month or more later.. Hats off to you, Don. I hope those you were apologising to see it, and accept it. (20 years ago, 24-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Ignoring the proof that's right in front of you. —Scott Arthur

(...) Don, do you often go into bars looking for fights? Scott A (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Ignoring the proof that's right in front of you. —Don Heyse

(...) No. That's what this place is for. Right? (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Fair use and allusion? —Scott Arthur

(...) John, don't be silly. (URL) Bush has no interest in democracy>. (...) Saddam held "elections" after he installed himself too. ;) (...) I note you do not counter my argument. (...) I note you do not counter my argument. (...) I note you do not (...) (20 years ago, 5-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Fair use and allusion? —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Actually, I'd say your misquote of me is the gross distortion (see the first line in the quote sequence for the correct claim). :-) (...) I still don't see what your point is here beyond controlling that flow (your original point was how it (...) (20 years ago, 4-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Fair use and allusion? —John Neal

(...) I stand corrected. I noticed my gaff after I posted:-( Though it isn't your stance, it is a common misconception that is held. I apologize for attributing it to you:-) (...) Our main objective was eliminating a dangerous threat in the person (...) (20 years ago, 6-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Fair use and allusion? —Scott Arthur

(...) If you do think he had WMD, are you not concerned that Bush has engineered a situation whereby OBL’s foot soldiers are apparently crawling all over the country? Scott A (20 years ago, 6-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Fair use and allusion? —John Neal

(...) Along with everybody else. (...) What exactly do you mean? Yes, there are terrorists there to attack Americans. But can you not see that we are not the only targets? What if, tomorrow, we were to evacuate completely from Iraq? Do you think (...) (20 years ago, 6-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Fair use and allusion? —Scott Arthur

(...) I'm talking about *today* (...) I mean Bush has engineered a situation whereby OBL’s foot soldiers are apparently crawling all over Iraq... a country apparently full of WMD! (...) Nice try. I did not say that. (What is your point?) (...) I (...) (20 years ago, 6-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Fair use and allusion? —David Koudys

(...) Oh that's simple then--there's the base line right there! We can kick at the ant hill all we want and so long as the ants don't come and attack us directly, then things are honkey dory! We can get the hornets all nice and angry by throwing (...) (20 years ago, 6-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Fair use and allusion? —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Yeah, I'm with John! What does it matter if Americans die needlessly and have their resources wasted as long as it is happening Out of Sight! ;-) Hunky-dory. No relation to Shiri Dori. Or were you being ebonical? -->Bruce<-- (20 years ago, 6-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Win-win-win? —Scott Arthur

(...) Well that has failed. The WMD are apparently AWOL, the whole country looks like a giant terrorist recruiting centre and it is clear that the "threat" to us all is (URL) increasing>! (...) Yep. We killed >10,000, put new torturers in the (...) (20 years ago, 7-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Fair use and allusion? —Scott Arthur

(...) Add to that the UK and a growing number of your own countrymen. (...) ...and Bush wanted to remove him at the expense of the Iraqi people. Scott A (20 years ago, 28-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Fair use and allusion? —Scott Arthur

(...) It did. (...) Sure, let's get rid of the veto. Lets go back and look at all the resolutions against Israel. Would the NeoCons in Washington like that? Scott A (20 years ago, 28-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Fair use and allusion? —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) So what about Saudi Arabia? It seems like you keep dodging the fact that SA is a much, much, much more significant player than Iraq given the very criteria that you just listed. Do you imagine that it could have anything to do with the very (...) (20 years ago, 28-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Robbery, Reconstruction or Quagmire? —Scott Arthur

(...) John, do you really believe this codswallop? This (URL) article> argues that security costs are eating up 25% of reconstruction contracts and that insurance brokers selling sudden-death policies to contractors in Iraq have doubled their (...) (20 years ago, 28-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Robbery, Reconstruction or Quagmire? —Christopher L. Weeks

I find myself largely in agreement with Scott. But there is this: (...) Actually, they leave them because when the truck gets a flat in an insecure zone, they would rather torch the truck and leave it a flaming wreck than have their personnel (...) (20 years ago, 28-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Robbery, Reconstruction or Quagmire? —Scott Arthur

(...) I expect you are correct. I was trying to highlight the chaos in Iraq to show how little Iraqis are benefiting from the billions of $$$ which are being transferred to Bush’s corporate buddies in their name. Scott A (...) (20 years ago, 28-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Fair use and allusion? —Ross Crawford

(...) Looks like you were wrong ;) I'm anxiously awaiting our own federal election some time later this year. What with that, a US election in Nov, and Tony Blair showing a bit of spirit, maybe the world will seem a different place next year. Then (...) (20 years ago, 30-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Fair use and allusion? —David Koudys

(...) Yep, just got back from camping and I sees that the Lie-berals managed to squeak thru. Now with the wonderfulness that is a 'minority gov't', Canada can possibly look forward to another election within two years (the longest minority gov't in (...) (20 years ago, 1-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Fair use and allusion? —John Neal

(...) We are talking about different things. I was speaking about the war on terrorism in general; the fight against Muslim extremists who have been murdering innocents around the world for some time now. War was "declared" on the world a long time (...) (20 years ago, 26-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Fair use and allusion? —Dave Schuler

(...) (URL) Hot off the presses!> Our Copresident seems to embrace a colorful rhetorical style that could cause he Congressional record to lose its "PG" rating. I wonder--will Cheney be forced by the FCC to pay an unreasonably huge fine because of (...) (20 years ago, 25-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Fair use and allusion? —John Neal

(...) Leahy could induce even the Pope to curse;-) JOHN (20 years ago, 25-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

I'm sure MM is loving this! —Scott Arthur

(...) I'd only have a problem with this if the advert's content subjectively criticises Bush's record. Does it? If I were you, I'd be more concerned about bias in the news media. I read (URL) yesterday> that after spending $80,000,000(1) on an (...) (20 years ago, 25-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Fair use of designer shirts? —Scott Arthur

(...) I enjoyed (URL) this> about the same group. Scott A (20 years ago, 25-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Taking the bait (was Re: Fair use and allusion?) —Dave Schuler

(...) Let's review: In post 24440 (ie, the post-at-hand) you rattled off a litany of negative descriptors, identifying Moore as a "waste of food and total twit" who is "without shame," who "is mostly wrong about stuff," and whose "approach to his (...) (20 years ago, 24-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Taking the bait (was Re: Fair use and allusion?) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) The evidence has been presented here in the past and I'm not inclined to dig it up again. (...) Cites please? I'm not pro-corporate by any stretch of the imagination, unless you're anti-capitalist and don't see the distinction between (...) (20 years ago, 24-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Taking the bait (was Re: Fair use and allusion?) —Dave Schuler

(...) Because the willful choice not to support your argument is indistinguishable from forfeiting the argument, I accept this as your forfeiture. If it is not your intent to forfeit, then I invite you to support your argument, as you have demanded (...) (20 years ago, 25-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Taking the bait (was Re: Fair use and allusion?) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) OK, The support needed is rather different, though. You need to support with logic that my characterisations of Moore somehow falsify what I said.\ I need to support by showing that Moore isn't factual, and that his assertions don't follow (...) (20 years ago, 25-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Taking the bait (was Re: Fair use and allusion?) —Dave Schuler

(...) Why is that my task? I'm not asserting that your claim is false but rather that your assertions don't support it. (...) That, too, may be a matter of perspective. If your claim is that Moore is not factual, then you must document his (...) (20 years ago, 25-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Taking the bait (was Re: Fair use and allusion?) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) (much snippage) (...) Ok, fair enough. I will try to do better going forward. (...) Here's someone else that just popped up making the same, or a similar, point. (URL) (20 years ago, 28-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Fair use and allusion? —Larry Pieniazek

I happened to find an interesting cite. I think it's germane to the section of the post below I haven't trimmed away (...) This is an op-ed piece written by Ellen Goodman: (URL) found this para particularly relevant: "Moore described his movie as an (...) (20 years ago, 2-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Fair use and allusion? —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Why are you telling US this? Why aren't you on the podium at the Republican convention? For a party that detests Moore, they are bigger liars and prevaricators (and True Liarnators) than Moore. :-) -->Bruce<-- (20 years ago, 3-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Fair use and allusion? —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Because I care more about you guys than I do the Republican conventioneers? Man their speakers do drone on, don't they? (...) See above. (...) Agreed. But besides the point I was making, which is that Moore damages his causes merely by being (...) (20 years ago, 3-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Fair use and allusion? —Scott Arthur

(...) If Moore causes issues to get debated which would otherwise lie quite, I think that’s a good thing. It amazes me how those interested ‘the truth’ attack Moore night and day whist saying nothing about the bias in the US media. I wonder why that (...) (20 years ago, 3-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Fair use and allusion? —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) I'm not sure who you mean, exactly. But I work with a bunch of Bushites who hate Moore and they do pretty commonly assault the (liberal, commie, pinko, neo-hippy, etc.) bias in the US media. Is that what you mean? Chris (20 years ago, 3-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Fair use and allusion? —Scott Arthur

(...) Chris, either you are being facetious, or your friends are listening to too much talk radio. ;-) BTW What is a neo-hippy? Scott Arthur PS A t-shirt I saw the other day: The USSR had Pravda; the USA has Fox News. (...) (20 years ago, 3-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Fair use and allusion? —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) What is Ray whining about? It gives some attention to his book, and parodies of an actual book/film/play titles are a long standing tradition in this country. -->Bruce<-- (20 years ago, 21-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Fair use and allusion? —Dave Schuler

(...) As Ray himself knows very well! A LUGNET member-at-large reminded me that Bradbury's (URL) Wicked This Way Comes> is itself a rip-off of (URL) an earlier work.> Pedants and kneejerk anti-Moore zealots will no doubt observe that Shakespeare was (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Fair use and allusion? —Scott Arthur

I'm sure both Moore & Bradbury are enjoying the publicity. It’s interesting to see the rather partisan spilt in opinions expressed in this thread... Scott A (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Fair use and allusion? —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Which parties? Chris (20 years ago, 22-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Fair use and allusion? —Scott Arthur

(...) This thread concerns MM, so I'm allowed to be loose with my English... ;) I think you know what I meant. Scott A (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Fair use and allusion? —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) No, actually I don't. What I would expect your words to mean is that Democrats are supportive of Moore and Republicans are not. But that's not what I'm seeing in this thread, so I was curious how you were viewing things. I wasn't nitpicking. (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Fair use and allusion? —Scott Arthur

(...) My view was that those who had noted a dislike for Moore in the past appeared to welcome this apparent opportunity to grind their axes. It’s just an off-the-cuff comment; don’t read too much into it. (...) I'd have thought you would not have a (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Fair use and allusion? —Larry Pieniazek

(...) The party of those who "deplore his methods" (quotes deliberate) but think he can nevertheless do no wrong since his cause is just and who embrace all sorts of lies and mean spirited things when Moore (or others in their pantheon of "heroes") (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)