The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Is the new book by Michael Moore, he of 'Bowling for Columbine' and 'Stupid White Men' fame.
For those of you who don't know about him, Moore is one of those rare beasts; an angry liberal. The Oscar winning documentary, Bowling for Columbine, seethed with barely contained rage at the deliberate use of fear by the US government and media in order to keep people in line. The international bestseller, Stupid White Men, railed at the reality of America today; that the entire country is run for the benefit of a very few people, and that those people are happy to break and abuse the law to continue doing so.
'Dude, Where's my Country' is a follow up to 'Stupid White Men'. It deals with much the same theme as it's predecessor: How America is being run, and the direction it is heading in under Dubya and the Republican party.
Moore makes a number of quite startling accusations against Dubya and his government. So startling in fact that I found myself thinking "Nah, this can't be true...he must be exaggerating to make his point". Happily, references to the sources he drew the information from are provided in the book, so if you're as sad as I am, you can check the references and validate what he's saying yourself.
You may wish you hadn't though; Moore paints a very unwelcome picture of an America with numerous terrifying parallels to 30's Germany (in particular, the abuse of Patriotism; if you don't support Dubya/the Fuhrer, you're unpatriotic and woe betide you then...), and of a world in general that has more in common with 1984 than the fairytale that America is supposed to represent.
It's not all doom and gloom however. We in the UK have an image of Americans as reactionary conservatives with no interest in civil rights. Moore devotes a whole chapter to dispelling this myth. The average American is a lot more liberal than the average European. Unfortunately, Mr Average America is also a lot more apathetic, and this goes some way to explaining the disproportionate influence wielded by the extreme right in the US.
If I had to make a criticism of the book, it would be the tone used. Moore has a habit of transferring his rage directly onto the page. As such, some might be turned off by the angry rhetoric (and, occasionally, the snide sniping that one tends to associate with conservatives like Ann Coulter) that peppers the book.
But that would be to miss the point; one should concentrate on WHAT Moore says, and not the way in which he says it. Though the anger is palpable, Moore is also able to laugh at himself, as well as poking fun at his targets. This makes him a much easier read than, for example, the humourless displeasure that Dubya incurs in most other prominent liberals.
All in all, I would recommend this book to anyone with any interest at all in politics and international events, regardless of their political slant. It's accessible and well written. Liberals will find themself nodding in agreement, Conservatives will doubtless not even bother to read it. But they should, as it will give any reader a lot to think about.
For those of you who don't know about him, Moore is one of those rare beasts; an angry liberal. The Oscar winning documentary, Bowling for Columbine, seethed with barely contained rage at the deliberate use of fear by the US government and media in order to keep people in line. The international bestseller, Stupid White Men, railed at the reality of America today; that the entire country is run for the benefit of a very few people, and that those people are happy to break and abuse the law to continue doing so.
'Dude, Where's my Country' is a follow up to 'Stupid White Men'. It deals with much the same theme as it's predecessor: How America is being run, and the direction it is heading in under Dubya and the Republican party.
Moore makes a number of quite startling accusations against Dubya and his government. So startling in fact that I found myself thinking "Nah, this can't be true...he must be exaggerating to make his point". Happily, references to the sources he drew the information from are provided in the book, so if you're as sad as I am, you can check the references and validate what he's saying yourself.
You may wish you hadn't though; Moore paints a very unwelcome picture of an America with numerous terrifying parallels to 30's Germany (in particular, the abuse of Patriotism; if you don't support Dubya/the Fuhrer, you're unpatriotic and woe betide you then...), and of a world in general that has more in common with 1984 than the fairytale that America is supposed to represent.
It's not all doom and gloom however. We in the UK have an image of Americans as reactionary conservatives with no interest in civil rights. Moore devotes a whole chapter to dispelling this myth. The average American is a lot more liberal than the average European. Unfortunately, Mr Average America is also a lot more apathetic, and this goes some way to explaining the disproportionate influence wielded by the extreme right in the US.
If I had to make a criticism of the book, it would be the tone used. Moore has a habit of transferring his rage directly onto the page. As such, some might be turned off by the angry rhetoric (and, occasionally, the snide sniping that one tends to associate with conservatives like Ann Coulter) that peppers the book.
But that would be to miss the point; one should concentrate on WHAT Moore says, and not the way in which he says it. Though the anger is palpable, Moore is also able to laugh at himself, as well as poking fun at his targets. This makes him a much easier read than, for example, the humourless displeasure that Dubya incurs in most other prominent liberals.
All in all, I would recommend this book to anyone with any interest at all in politics and international events, regardless of their political slant. It's accessible and well written. Liberals will find themself nodding in agreement, Conservatives will doubtless not even bother to read it. But they should, as it will give any reader a lot to think about.
Page:
Bane wrote:
> ;)
Grrr....hoisted by my own petard!
> ;)
Grrr....hoisted by my own petard!
;)
Bane wrote:
> Don't give up now, I was just finding renewed respect for your style
> of discussion.
I can't decide if that's dripping with sarcasm or not. Hmm...I've been reading Bell's posts for too long; I'm losing my sense of humour...
> Don't give up now, I was just finding renewed respect for your style
> of discussion.
I can't decide if that's dripping with sarcasm or not. Hmm...I've been reading Bell's posts for too long; I'm losing my sense of humour...
Belldandy wrote:
> *throws hands up in despair*
>
> I give up, this is so stupid it is beyond belief.
Yes, you are.
>
> I of course demand that proof be provided first of every factual
> statement made by every single person in this topic, because Light is
> like that.
Well, as no-one else here has ever been caught out lying through their teeth, you'd not really be very justified in being able to ask that, would you? Unless you can find an example of where either Goaty or I lied, deliberately told something we knew not to be true, just to try and win an argument?
Also, funny how you 'give up' when you've been challenged to provide examples of Goatboy saying something that he never actually said. Could it be that you're getting annoyed because we aren't just accepting what you say when you provide no proof for it? Could it be that you're finally learning to be embarrassed when you make a proclamation with no basis, and get caught out? Or are you just running away again? I'll bet I can guess which one it is...
> *throws hands up in despair*
>
> I give up, this is so stupid it is beyond belief.
Yes, you are.
>
> I of course demand that proof be provided first of every factual
> statement made by every single person in this topic, because Light is
> like that.
Well, as no-one else here has ever been caught out lying through their teeth, you'd not really be very justified in being able to ask that, would you? Unless you can find an example of where either Goaty or I lied, deliberately told something we knew not to be true, just to try and win an argument?
Also, funny how you 'give up' when you've been challenged to provide examples of Goatboy saying something that he never actually said. Could it be that you're getting annoyed because we aren't just accepting what you say when you provide no proof for it? Could it be that you're finally learning to be embarrassed when you make a proclamation with no basis, and get caught out? Or are you just running away again? I'll bet I can guess which one it is...
Don't give up now, I was just finding renewed respect for your style of discussion.
*throws hands up in despair*
I give up, this is so stupid it is beyond belief.
I of course demand that proof be provided first of every factual statement made by every single person in this topic, because Light is like that.
I give up, this is so stupid it is beyond belief.
I of course demand that proof be provided first of every factual statement made by every single person in this topic, because Light is like that.
Belldandy wrote:
> Well Black Hawk Down for one, other than that there have not really
> been many films I know of that have involved the military.
I gave you the explanation you asked for.
You asked why Black Hawk Down would recieve help, and I explained as I saw it.
> They are fiction mixed with history where relevant, i.e the Israeli
> nuclear weapon in Sum Of All Fears. That was real, the weapon did
> exist, Israel would have used it.
So now you're saying they're NOT simply fiction, but faction?
It's impossible to discuss this with you Bell, you chop and change your argument, yank examples from thin air to try and shore up your views and then ignore when called on it.
> You have said they always show the US in a positive light, that is
> untrue and a is a clear argument based on the content. How can you
> say what his books show without talking about content ?
No. No no no no no no no no no no no.
One last time, because you reeeeally seem to be genuinely stupid.
I have said that you COULD argue his novels are propaganda, it MIGHT be said that he is a mouthpiece.
I have not at any point whatsoever, in any way, discussed content except for one statement about the one with the plane crash, and admitted I was unfamiliar with the rest of them and deferred to your knowledge.
It is using the general body of his work to suggest, as you are so fond of doing with "whiny lefties", that were you so inclined you COULD percieve him in that way.
Supposition/extrapolation/conjecture.
Are you clear on this?
And my challenge stands, find me 1 single post where I discuss the content.
Go on.
Quote a post where I have questioned/discussed in any way the content of his books in any level of detail whatsoever.
Find me one post.
> I have said how Clancy's books *in general* are percieved by me.
> Not specifics or arguing content with you, but his perception and
> storylines bore me.
>
> But you have, you have argued how they show the US and military etc
See my above post.
Simpleton.
Show me one single post where I have argued how they show the US etc BY DISCUSSING CONTENT.
> Show me where I have said "Clear & Present Danger" (or
> whatever title) is wrong because the depiction of Irish terrorist
> cells is wholly inaccurate and written with the understanding
> typical
> of sympathetic Americans" or anything like that.
>
> Patriot Games actually, to a small degree Rainbow Six as well.
See? You can't do it.
You can't find a post like I have challenged in my above two responses.
And surely the fact I got the name wrong would indicate that I am unfamiliar with his material.
As I said at the get-go.
As I have continued to say.
Show me a post.
> You have said how you say his books depict certain things. So what
> you are saying is that you formed that opinion, based on perception
> rather than content, that same way as I have formed an opinion of
> Moore ? Yes ?
Last time, and yes it's a repeat of my replies in this post and the previous 3.
I have said you COULD ARGUE that his novels act as promotional literature for the US military and government.
Show me a post where I have said his books depict certain things.
Go on, find me a post where I say what his books depict.
Just one where I discuss what his books depict.
I have formed an opinion that I do not enjoy Tom Clancy books based on reading half of one.
You have formed an opinion that you do not enjoy Michael Moore based on reading nothing at all nor watching any of his programmes.
I have not at any point whatsover, 4th time in this reply, discussed content.
Show me a post otherwise.
You have argued specific content with those that have read by selectively using anti-Moore websites to bolster an argument over a person you have never read.
I have never argued specific content with those that have read by selectively using any websites at all to bolster an argument over a person I have barely read.
Jesus you're stupid.
> Well Black Hawk Down for one, other than that there have not really
> been many films I know of that have involved the military.
I gave you the explanation you asked for.
You asked why Black Hawk Down would recieve help, and I explained as I saw it.
> They are fiction mixed with history where relevant, i.e the Israeli
> nuclear weapon in Sum Of All Fears. That was real, the weapon did
> exist, Israel would have used it.
So now you're saying they're NOT simply fiction, but faction?
It's impossible to discuss this with you Bell, you chop and change your argument, yank examples from thin air to try and shore up your views and then ignore when called on it.
> You have said they always show the US in a positive light, that is
> untrue and a is a clear argument based on the content. How can you
> say what his books show without talking about content ?
No. No no no no no no no no no no no.
One last time, because you reeeeally seem to be genuinely stupid.
I have said that you COULD argue his novels are propaganda, it MIGHT be said that he is a mouthpiece.
I have not at any point whatsoever, in any way, discussed content except for one statement about the one with the plane crash, and admitted I was unfamiliar with the rest of them and deferred to your knowledge.
It is using the general body of his work to suggest, as you are so fond of doing with "whiny lefties", that were you so inclined you COULD percieve him in that way.
Supposition/extrapolation/conjecture.
Are you clear on this?
And my challenge stands, find me 1 single post where I discuss the content.
Go on.
Quote a post where I have questioned/discussed in any way the content of his books in any level of detail whatsoever.
Find me one post.
> I have said how Clancy's books *in general* are percieved by me.
> Not specifics or arguing content with you, but his perception and
> storylines bore me.
>
> But you have, you have argued how they show the US and military etc
See my above post.
Simpleton.
Show me one single post where I have argued how they show the US etc BY DISCUSSING CONTENT.
> Show me where I have said "Clear & Present Danger" (or
> whatever title) is wrong because the depiction of Irish terrorist
> cells is wholly inaccurate and written with the understanding
> typical
> of sympathetic Americans" or anything like that.
>
> Patriot Games actually, to a small degree Rainbow Six as well.
See? You can't do it.
You can't find a post like I have challenged in my above two responses.
And surely the fact I got the name wrong would indicate that I am unfamiliar with his material.
As I said at the get-go.
As I have continued to say.
Show me a post.
> You have said how you say his books depict certain things. So what
> you are saying is that you formed that opinion, based on perception
> rather than content, that same way as I have formed an opinion of
> Moore ? Yes ?
Last time, and yes it's a repeat of my replies in this post and the previous 3.
I have said you COULD ARGUE that his novels act as promotional literature for the US military and government.
Show me a post where I have said his books depict certain things.
Go on, find me a post where I say what his books depict.
Just one where I discuss what his books depict.
I have formed an opinion that I do not enjoy Tom Clancy books based on reading half of one.
You have formed an opinion that you do not enjoy Michael Moore based on reading nothing at all nor watching any of his programmes.
I have not at any point whatsover, 4th time in this reply, discussed content.
Show me a post otherwise.
You have argued specific content with those that have read by selectively using anti-Moore websites to bolster an argument over a person you have never read.
I have never argued specific content with those that have read by selectively using any websites at all to bolster an argument over a person I have barely read.
Jesus you're stupid.
Belldandy wrote:
> Goatboy wrote:
> Yes I did, and I stand by that. Show me an example of assistance
> offered to a negative view situation. Show me how I am wrong in
> that.
>
> Well Black Hawk Down for one, other than that there have not really
> been many films I know of that have involved the military. Behind
> Enemy Lines did not, Windtalkers did not need to, in fact most recent
> ones have been WW2 or just general terrorism type ones. I know one, -
> The Siege. That had help and it most certainly was not a positive
> depiction, unless a rogue US general torturing and killing in cold
> blood a terrorist is positive ? Along with many other scenes.
Could you provide proof that these films received US military assistance? you lie so often that it's gotten so I simply don't believe what you say without proof.
>
> "Please, find me your post where you discuss "what I had
> said about how it is decided which films get assistance."
> You have not made any form of statement about how films get
> assistance until tonight, with the information in the post
> below"
>
> You said assistance only given to ones which showed US forces in a
> shining positive light. I said that was not the case, and never
> referred to information before that, except to say that was not the
> case.
That's a lie. You said;
> Read what I said. The US Military decides on a case by case basis
> whom and what it helps produce entertainment, fiction and
> non-fiction.
So you refer to what you'd said beforehand when you hadn't actually said anything.
>
> They are fiction mixed with history where relevant, i.e the Israeli
> nuclear weapon in Sum Of All Fears. That was real, the weapon did
> exist, Israel would have used it.
And that's it? That's the real part of it? That Israel has a nuclear weapon, ergo Clancy was on the money about the threat of nuclear weapons from terrorists?
Look, the book Enigma was fiction mixed with history. You don't find people using that as a revered historical document as you do with the fiction of Clancy.
>
> Where? Where have I argued the content of Tom Clancy novels? Show me
> the post where I have argued or discussed the plot/content in detail
> of a novel by this author.
>
> You have said they always show the US in a positive light, that is
> untrue and a is a clear argument based on the content. How can you
> say what his books show without talking about content ?
Except GB never made any statements saying they DO show that, did he? As he's repeatedly said, and as you've repeatedly ignored, he said "One COULD SAY that...". Which is rather different from saying "This IS WHAT the books say".
Also, he has never argued about the plot, and never about the content except in the most general terms possible (ie. that they portray the US in a positive light). Now I HAVE read a lot of Clancy books, and I have to say that in general they do indeed portray the US in a positive light. Would you agree with that?
>
> I'd agree with that. That is certainly how I see his books.
...and you see them like that without having read any of them, or without knowing a single thing about them.
>
> I have said how Clancy's books *in general* are percieved by me.
> Not specifics or arguing content with you, but his perception and
> storylines bore me.
>
> But you have, you have argued how they show the US and military etc
Oh? Where were those specifics? You're determined to avoid this aren't you? Goaty has admitted to generalities and pointed out what they are. You point to those same generalities and say "but they're specifics". Saying that they show the US military in a positive light...how is that specific? Please explain.
>
> You have said how you say his books depict certain things. So what
> you are saying is that you formed that opinion, based on perception
> rather than content, that same way as I have formed an opinion of
> Moore ? Yes ?
Erm...I think you'll find he formed his opinion on the writing based on the little of the one book he read, and his opinion on the content boils down to nothing more than "they are generally pro-USA". Which they are.
What are the 'certain things' he has said the books depict? Come on Bell; answer that question and I'll actually have a little respect for you. You won't though. Cos you know Goaty did no such thing, and you're desperately scrabbling for some way to justify what an idiot you're looking.
So whilst he has at least read half of one book and comments on no more than what he knows from that book, you have read nothing of Moore's yet still comment. THAT is the difference.
>
> Fair enough, I'll not bother talking about Moore again unless I
> (billion to one) read any of his books or watch his 'documentaries'.
If you actually stick to that, I'll be surprised but impressed. Oh...looking down this post, I see that your promise lasted all of 2 paragraphs.
>
> Well you seem to be the only one who can stay to the topic and not
> turn it into a name calling fest, hence I can actually find what you
> are asking and reply.
Heh. Get real Bell; you know that the reason you come in for such abuse is because you're an evasive, hypocritical coward. You avoid answering any points, but get all huffy when your own are dismissed. I've already gone into this in detail in another thread, but the reason you come in for such grief is that your own behaviour causes people to treat you in this manner. You simply choose to use it as an excuse to continually avoid addressing facts that you don't want to know about.
>
> Because his work is discussed in other books, which tackle his
> content. Nor is he the only one to feature allegations, in fact from
> what I perceive, nothing in his books is very original, simply
> existing stuff brought to a new audience in a more accessible way.
Hang on; didn't you just say you'd not talk about Moore again? In this post? Yet here you are, trying to argue why he's rubbish without having read ANY source material.
Don't you see Bell? When you keep contradicting yourself in your own posts, you look like a clown. And no-one takes you seriously. I mean, on the strength of this week I'm giving thought to campaigning for the board to institute an award for "Who has made Bell look Stupidest Today?". Except that you'd win it. Every day.
> Goatboy wrote:
> Yes I did, and I stand by that. Show me an example of assistance
> offered to a negative view situation. Show me how I am wrong in
> that.
>
> Well Black Hawk Down for one, other than that there have not really
> been many films I know of that have involved the military. Behind
> Enemy Lines did not, Windtalkers did not need to, in fact most recent
> ones have been WW2 or just general terrorism type ones. I know one, -
> The Siege. That had help and it most certainly was not a positive
> depiction, unless a rogue US general torturing and killing in cold
> blood a terrorist is positive ? Along with many other scenes.
Could you provide proof that these films received US military assistance? you lie so often that it's gotten so I simply don't believe what you say without proof.
>
> "Please, find me your post where you discuss "what I had
> said about how it is decided which films get assistance."
> You have not made any form of statement about how films get
> assistance until tonight, with the information in the post
> below"
>
> You said assistance only given to ones which showed US forces in a
> shining positive light. I said that was not the case, and never
> referred to information before that, except to say that was not the
> case.
That's a lie. You said;
> Read what I said. The US Military decides on a case by case basis
> whom and what it helps produce entertainment, fiction and
> non-fiction.
So you refer to what you'd said beforehand when you hadn't actually said anything.
>
> They are fiction mixed with history where relevant, i.e the Israeli
> nuclear weapon in Sum Of All Fears. That was real, the weapon did
> exist, Israel would have used it.
And that's it? That's the real part of it? That Israel has a nuclear weapon, ergo Clancy was on the money about the threat of nuclear weapons from terrorists?
Look, the book Enigma was fiction mixed with history. You don't find people using that as a revered historical document as you do with the fiction of Clancy.
>
> Where? Where have I argued the content of Tom Clancy novels? Show me
> the post where I have argued or discussed the plot/content in detail
> of a novel by this author.
>
> You have said they always show the US in a positive light, that is
> untrue and a is a clear argument based on the content. How can you
> say what his books show without talking about content ?
Except GB never made any statements saying they DO show that, did he? As he's repeatedly said, and as you've repeatedly ignored, he said "One COULD SAY that...". Which is rather different from saying "This IS WHAT the books say".
Also, he has never argued about the plot, and never about the content except in the most general terms possible (ie. that they portray the US in a positive light). Now I HAVE read a lot of Clancy books, and I have to say that in general they do indeed portray the US in a positive light. Would you agree with that?
>
> I'd agree with that. That is certainly how I see his books.
...and you see them like that without having read any of them, or without knowing a single thing about them.
>
> I have said how Clancy's books *in general* are percieved by me.
> Not specifics or arguing content with you, but his perception and
> storylines bore me.
>
> But you have, you have argued how they show the US and military etc
Oh? Where were those specifics? You're determined to avoid this aren't you? Goaty has admitted to generalities and pointed out what they are. You point to those same generalities and say "but they're specifics". Saying that they show the US military in a positive light...how is that specific? Please explain.
>
> You have said how you say his books depict certain things. So what
> you are saying is that you formed that opinion, based on perception
> rather than content, that same way as I have formed an opinion of
> Moore ? Yes ?
Erm...I think you'll find he formed his opinion on the writing based on the little of the one book he read, and his opinion on the content boils down to nothing more than "they are generally pro-USA". Which they are.
What are the 'certain things' he has said the books depict? Come on Bell; answer that question and I'll actually have a little respect for you. You won't though. Cos you know Goaty did no such thing, and you're desperately scrabbling for some way to justify what an idiot you're looking.
So whilst he has at least read half of one book and comments on no more than what he knows from that book, you have read nothing of Moore's yet still comment. THAT is the difference.
>
> Fair enough, I'll not bother talking about Moore again unless I
> (billion to one) read any of his books or watch his 'documentaries'.
If you actually stick to that, I'll be surprised but impressed. Oh...looking down this post, I see that your promise lasted all of 2 paragraphs.
>
> Well you seem to be the only one who can stay to the topic and not
> turn it into a name calling fest, hence I can actually find what you
> are asking and reply.
Heh. Get real Bell; you know that the reason you come in for such abuse is because you're an evasive, hypocritical coward. You avoid answering any points, but get all huffy when your own are dismissed. I've already gone into this in detail in another thread, but the reason you come in for such grief is that your own behaviour causes people to treat you in this manner. You simply choose to use it as an excuse to continually avoid addressing facts that you don't want to know about.
>
> Because his work is discussed in other books, which tackle his
> content. Nor is he the only one to feature allegations, in fact from
> what I perceive, nothing in his books is very original, simply
> existing stuff brought to a new audience in a more accessible way.
Hang on; didn't you just say you'd not talk about Moore again? In this post? Yet here you are, trying to argue why he's rubbish without having read ANY source material.
Don't you see Bell? When you keep contradicting yourself in your own posts, you look like a clown. And no-one takes you seriously. I mean, on the strength of this week I'm giving thought to campaigning for the board to institute an award for "Who has made Bell look Stupidest Today?". Except that you'd win it. Every day.
Goatboy wrote:
> Yes I did, and I stand by that. Show me an example of assistance
> offered to a negative view situation. Show me how I am wrong in
> that.
Well Black Hawk Down for one, other than that there have not really been many films I know of that have involved the military. Behind Enemy Lines did not, Windtalkers did not need to, in fact most recent ones have been WW2 or just general terrorism type ones. I know one, - The Siege. That had help and it most certainly was not a positive depiction, unless a rogue US general torturing and killing in cold blood a terrorist is positive ? Along with many other scenes.
> You drag "The Thin Red Line" out of nowhere, so tell me how
> that portrays the miltary in a negative way?
Bayoneting villagers anyone ? General incompetence ?
> "Please, find me your post where you discuss "what I had
> said about how it is decided which films get assistance."
> You have not made any form of statement about how films get
> assistance until tonight, with the information in the post
> below"
You said assistance only given to ones which showed US forces in a shining positive light. I said that was not the case, and never referred to information before that, except to say that was not the case.
> Ok, so you admit they are fiction. Perhaps then you will stop, in
> future, from referring to them as historical documents.
> Which is the ONLY reason Clancy gets a mention in relation to you,
> not the content of his books but the reverance in which you hold them
> and constantly refer to them in political discussion.
They are fiction mixed with history where relevant, i.e the Israeli nuclear weapon in Sum Of All Fears. That was real, the weapon did exist, Israel would have used it.
> Where? Where have I argued the content of Tom Clancy novels? Show me
> the post where I have argued or discussed the plot/content in detail
> of a novel by this author.
You have said they always show the US in a positive light, that is untrue and a is a clear argument based on the content. How can you say what his books show without talking about content ?
> "I do not like
> Michael Moore, his books can be taken as rhetoric designed to appeal
> to the already converted", but you have chosen to argue details
> of his work and to deride his material, being completely unfamiliar
> with it.
I'd agree with that. That is certainly how I see his books.
> I have said how Clancy's books *in general* are percieved by me.
> Not specifics or arguing content with you, but his perception and
> storylines bore me.
But you have, you have argued how they show the US and military etc
> Show me where I have said "Clear & Present Danger" (or
> whatever title) is wrong because the depiction of Irish terrorist
> cells is wholly inaccurate and written with the understanding typical
> of sympathetic Americans" or anything like that.
Patriot Games actually, to a small degree Rainbow Six as well.
> Quote a post where I have discussed and argued the contents of Clancy
> novels, then I am prepared to listen and accept your views.
> You seem unable to differentiate between supposition and discussion
> of the general perception of Clancy's writings as I see them and what
> you percieve as me arguing content of his books.
You have said how you say his books depict certain things. So what you are saying is that you formed that opinion, based on perception rather than content, that same way as I have formed an opinion of Moore ? Yes ?
Fair enough, I'll not bother talking about Moore again unless I (billion to one) read any of his books or watch his 'documentaries'.
> And I notice you STILL avoid the other points raised by myself,
> Light, Blank, unknown kernel etc.
Well you seem to be the only one who can stay to the topic and not turn it into a name calling fest, hence I can actually find what you are asking and reply.
> Tell how you can argue content, specific content like timelines and
> facts to do with election coverage, when you have not read the source
> material?
Because his work is discussed in other books, which tackle his content. Nor is he the only one to feature allegations, in fact from what I perceive, nothing in his books is very original, simply existing stuff brought to a new audience in a more accessible way.
> Yes I did, and I stand by that. Show me an example of assistance
> offered to a negative view situation. Show me how I am wrong in
> that.
Well Black Hawk Down for one, other than that there have not really been many films I know of that have involved the military. Behind Enemy Lines did not, Windtalkers did not need to, in fact most recent ones have been WW2 or just general terrorism type ones. I know one, - The Siege. That had help and it most certainly was not a positive depiction, unless a rogue US general torturing and killing in cold blood a terrorist is positive ? Along with many other scenes.
> You drag "The Thin Red Line" out of nowhere, so tell me how
> that portrays the miltary in a negative way?
Bayoneting villagers anyone ? General incompetence ?
> "Please, find me your post where you discuss "what I had
> said about how it is decided which films get assistance."
> You have not made any form of statement about how films get
> assistance until tonight, with the information in the post
> below"
You said assistance only given to ones which showed US forces in a shining positive light. I said that was not the case, and never referred to information before that, except to say that was not the case.
> Ok, so you admit they are fiction. Perhaps then you will stop, in
> future, from referring to them as historical documents.
> Which is the ONLY reason Clancy gets a mention in relation to you,
> not the content of his books but the reverance in which you hold them
> and constantly refer to them in political discussion.
They are fiction mixed with history where relevant, i.e the Israeli nuclear weapon in Sum Of All Fears. That was real, the weapon did exist, Israel would have used it.
> Where? Where have I argued the content of Tom Clancy novels? Show me
> the post where I have argued or discussed the plot/content in detail
> of a novel by this author.
You have said they always show the US in a positive light, that is untrue and a is a clear argument based on the content. How can you say what his books show without talking about content ?
> "I do not like
> Michael Moore, his books can be taken as rhetoric designed to appeal
> to the already converted", but you have chosen to argue details
> of his work and to deride his material, being completely unfamiliar
> with it.
I'd agree with that. That is certainly how I see his books.
> I have said how Clancy's books *in general* are percieved by me.
> Not specifics or arguing content with you, but his perception and
> storylines bore me.
But you have, you have argued how they show the US and military etc
> Show me where I have said "Clear & Present Danger" (or
> whatever title) is wrong because the depiction of Irish terrorist
> cells is wholly inaccurate and written with the understanding typical
> of sympathetic Americans" or anything like that.
Patriot Games actually, to a small degree Rainbow Six as well.
> Quote a post where I have discussed and argued the contents of Clancy
> novels, then I am prepared to listen and accept your views.
> You seem unable to differentiate between supposition and discussion
> of the general perception of Clancy's writings as I see them and what
> you percieve as me arguing content of his books.
You have said how you say his books depict certain things. So what you are saying is that you formed that opinion, based on perception rather than content, that same way as I have formed an opinion of Moore ? Yes ?
Fair enough, I'll not bother talking about Moore again unless I (billion to one) read any of his books or watch his 'documentaries'.
> And I notice you STILL avoid the other points raised by myself,
> Light, Blank, unknown kernel etc.
Well you seem to be the only one who can stay to the topic and not turn it into a name calling fest, hence I can actually find what you are asking and reply.
> Tell how you can argue content, specific content like timelines and
> facts to do with election coverage, when you have not read the source
> material?
Because his work is discussed in other books, which tackle his content. Nor is he the only one to feature allegations, in fact from what I perceive, nothing in his books is very original, simply existing stuff brought to a new audience in a more accessible way.
Belldandy wrote:
> But you did. The comment you made was wrong because you implied help
> was only given to ones which showed US forces in a shining positive
> light. Look back, you said that.
Yes I did, and I stand by that. Show me an example of assistance offered to a negative view situation. Show me how I am wrong in that.
You drag "The Thin Red Line" out of nowhere, so tell me how that portrays the miltary in a negative way?
And I repeat
"Please, find me your post where you discuss "what I had said about how it is decided which films get assistance."
You have not made any form of statement about how films get assistance until tonight, with the information in the post below"
> Except, as I have stated, he has no assistance with NOVELS, the only
> assitance he gets is for non-fiction because it'd be rather b**ody
> hard to write about stuff like aircraft carriers, special ops and
> suchlike without access, wouldn't it ?
Ok, so you admit they are fiction. Perhaps then you will stop, in future, from referring to them as historical documents.
Which is the ONLY reason Clancy gets a mention in relation to you, not the content of his books but the reverance in which you hold them and constantly refer to them in political discussion.
> Except you have.
Where? Where have I argued the content of Tom Clancy novels? Show me the post where I have argued or discussed the plot/content in detail of a novel by this author.
Whereas you felt qualified to discuss editing techniques, time lines and facts from Bowling for Columbine, a film you have not seen.
> Well if certain people weren't making points about his work then that
> wouldn't happen.
For fu...you brought him up Bell, in a snidy little aside of "So who here has actually read Clancy?"
I said "Yep, but not much of one" and that has sparked this entire fiasco where you do not seem to understand the point of the original argument.
Again.
> Please explain how the above is not the most contradictory statement
> I have seen you type.
Ok, small easy to understand words.
I have talked about the tone and general approach of Clancy.
NOT the content, but the climate in which his books COULD be taken, how people MIGHT view his stance.
Are you getting this?
It is a world of difference between saying that his political ideaology does not agree with me, and using websites to argue specific content of individual books/films without having read them.
Is that clear enough?
It would not be a problem if you were to say "I do not like Michael Moore, his books can be taken as rhetoric designed to appeal to the already converted", but you have chosen to argue details of his work and to deride his material, being completely unfamiliar with it.
I have said how Clancy's books *in general* are percieved by me.
Not specifics or arguing content with you, but his perception and storylines bore me.
> You say you have made no comment on the content of his books, then go
> on to comment on the content. You then go on to discuss content of
> non-fiction books which you have not read, and I guess Light hasn't
> either, even if he has read the fiction ones. You then say you are
> not talking about what his books are about, but you already have
> done.
WHERE?????
You imbecile.
Where?
Show me a post where I discuss the content of his books.
> Yet that is what you are doing with Clancy.
>
> The usual double standards in operation.
Show me the double standards.
Show me where I have said "Clear & Present Danger" (or whatever title) is wrong because the depiction of Irish terrorist cells is wholly inaccurate and written with the understanding typical of sympathetic Americans" or anything like that.
Quote a post where I have discussed and argued the contents of Clancy novels, then I am prepared to listen and accept your views.
You seem unable to differentiate between supposition and discussion of the general perception of Clancy's writings as I see them and what you percieve as me arguing content of his books.
And I notice you STILL avoid the other points raised by myself, Light, Blank, unknown kernel etc.
Tell how you can argue content, specific content like timelines and facts to do with election coverage, when you have not read the source material?
Tell me why you are persisting with this Clancy issue, and have chosen to ignore the several pages of comments regarding your attitudes and idiotic arguments over the specific material of a man you are 100% unfamiliar with?
> But you did. The comment you made was wrong because you implied help
> was only given to ones which showed US forces in a shining positive
> light. Look back, you said that.
Yes I did, and I stand by that. Show me an example of assistance offered to a negative view situation. Show me how I am wrong in that.
You drag "The Thin Red Line" out of nowhere, so tell me how that portrays the miltary in a negative way?
And I repeat
"Please, find me your post where you discuss "what I had said about how it is decided which films get assistance."
You have not made any form of statement about how films get assistance until tonight, with the information in the post below"
> Except, as I have stated, he has no assistance with NOVELS, the only
> assitance he gets is for non-fiction because it'd be rather b**ody
> hard to write about stuff like aircraft carriers, special ops and
> suchlike without access, wouldn't it ?
Ok, so you admit they are fiction. Perhaps then you will stop, in future, from referring to them as historical documents.
Which is the ONLY reason Clancy gets a mention in relation to you, not the content of his books but the reverance in which you hold them and constantly refer to them in political discussion.
> Except you have.
Where? Where have I argued the content of Tom Clancy novels? Show me the post where I have argued or discussed the plot/content in detail of a novel by this author.
Whereas you felt qualified to discuss editing techniques, time lines and facts from Bowling for Columbine, a film you have not seen.
> Well if certain people weren't making points about his work then that
> wouldn't happen.
For fu...you brought him up Bell, in a snidy little aside of "So who here has actually read Clancy?"
I said "Yep, but not much of one" and that has sparked this entire fiasco where you do not seem to understand the point of the original argument.
Again.
> Please explain how the above is not the most contradictory statement
> I have seen you type.
Ok, small easy to understand words.
I have talked about the tone and general approach of Clancy.
NOT the content, but the climate in which his books COULD be taken, how people MIGHT view his stance.
Are you getting this?
It is a world of difference between saying that his political ideaology does not agree with me, and using websites to argue specific content of individual books/films without having read them.
Is that clear enough?
It would not be a problem if you were to say "I do not like Michael Moore, his books can be taken as rhetoric designed to appeal to the already converted", but you have chosen to argue details of his work and to deride his material, being completely unfamiliar with it.
I have said how Clancy's books *in general* are percieved by me.
Not specifics or arguing content with you, but his perception and storylines bore me.
> You say you have made no comment on the content of his books, then go
> on to comment on the content. You then go on to discuss content of
> non-fiction books which you have not read, and I guess Light hasn't
> either, even if he has read the fiction ones. You then say you are
> not talking about what his books are about, but you already have
> done.
WHERE?????
You imbecile.
Where?
Show me a post where I discuss the content of his books.
> Yet that is what you are doing with Clancy.
>
> The usual double standards in operation.
Show me the double standards.
Show me where I have said "Clear & Present Danger" (or whatever title) is wrong because the depiction of Irish terrorist cells is wholly inaccurate and written with the understanding typical of sympathetic Americans" or anything like that.
Quote a post where I have discussed and argued the contents of Clancy novels, then I am prepared to listen and accept your views.
You seem unable to differentiate between supposition and discussion of the general perception of Clancy's writings as I see them and what you percieve as me arguing content of his books.
And I notice you STILL avoid the other points raised by myself, Light, Blank, unknown kernel etc.
Tell how you can argue content, specific content like timelines and facts to do with election coverage, when you have not read the source material?
Tell me why you are persisting with this Clancy issue, and have chosen to ignore the several pages of comments regarding your attitudes and idiotic arguments over the specific material of a man you are 100% unfamiliar with?
Page: