Comments on: No Surprise http://www.oliverwillis.com/2006/06/05/no-surprise/ Like Kryptonite To Stupid Sat, 11 Feb 2012 02:42:44 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.4 By: SaveFarris http://www.oliverwillis.com/2006/06/05/no-surprise/#comment-35729 SaveFarris Wed, 07 Jun 2006 16:06:44 +0000 http://improveman.com/ow2008/?p=2134#comment-35729 Speaking of shaky cases, I'd bet on Moore before I bet on Patrick Fitzgerald or Ronnie Earle. Speaking of shaky cases, I’d bet on Moore before I bet on Patrick Fitzgerald or Ronnie Earle.

]]> By: duros62 http://www.oliverwillis.com/2006/06/05/no-surprise/#comment-35728 duros62 Tue, 06 Jun 2006 22:06:55 +0000 http://improveman.com/ow2008/?p=2134#comment-35728 If by "portrayed accurately" you mean actually present at the time of filming, yeah, you may have misread it. If by “portrayed accurately” you mean actually present at the time of filming, yeah, you may have misread it.

]]> By: drpedro http://www.oliverwillis.com/2006/06/05/no-surprise/#comment-35727 drpedro Tue, 06 Jun 2006 00:06:48 +0000 http://improveman.com/ow2008/?p=2134#comment-35727 Shorter fact: "this scares the piss out of me, the conservatives could eat our lunch...." Shorter fact:

“this scares the piss out of me, the conservatives could eat our lunch….”

]]> By: factcheck http://www.oliverwillis.com/2006/06/05/no-surprise/#comment-35726 factcheck Mon, 05 Jun 2006 23:06:06 +0000 http://improveman.com/ow2008/?p=2134#comment-35726 Cons don't really want to start suing liberal writers- we could pay off the national debt just from libel suits against Regnery alone. I would advise them not to open up that can of worms. Cons don’t really want to start suing liberal writers- we could pay off the national debt just from libel suits against Regnery alone. I would advise them not to open up that can of worms.

]]> By: drpedro http://www.oliverwillis.com/2006/06/05/no-surprise/#comment-35725 drpedro Mon, 05 Jun 2006 22:06:51 +0000 http://improveman.com/ow2008/?p=2134#comment-35725 <i>Moore-haters, pay careful attention to what Schnack is saying. He's not saying that Moore has the right to distort or alter Damon's words. What he is saying is that a journalist, a nonfiction filmmaker or an author has the right to use someone's words in the service of his or her own agenda, even if that person is offended, as long as the person is portrayed accurately</i> did I misread the authors use of the words "as long as the person is portrayed accurately"? Moore-haters, pay careful attention to what Schnack is saying. He’s not saying that Moore has the right to distort or alter Damon’s words. What he is saying is that a journalist, a nonfiction filmmaker or an author has the right to use someone’s words in the service of his or her own agenda, even if that person is offended, as long as the person is portrayed accurately

did I misread the authors use of the words “as long as the person is portrayed accurately”?

]]> By: drpedro http://www.oliverwillis.com/2006/06/05/no-surprise/#comment-35724 drpedro Mon, 05 Jun 2006 20:06:51 +0000 http://improveman.com/ow2008/?p=2134#comment-35724 Not exactly what that article says. In fact, I would say that it makes the case more strongly. Moore needs to prove that that veterans words were used in context. Hell if you think that having a conservative attorney going to trial agaisnt a leftist filmaker is somehow <i>vertboten</i>, what do you think about Kuntsler ? Not exactly what that article says.

In fact, I would say that it makes the case more strongly. Moore needs to prove that that veterans words were used in context.

Hell if you think that having a conservative attorney going to trial agaisnt a leftist filmaker is somehow vertboten, what do you think about Kuntsler ?

]]> By: Oliver Willis http://www.oliverwillis.com/2006/06/05/no-surprise/#comment-35723 Oliver Willis Mon, 05 Jun 2006 20:06:45 +0000 http://improveman.com/ow2008/?p=2134#comment-35723 As the article clearly says there's no "in context" requirement, and the conservative attorney is pretending that his client never appeared with Sen. Kennedy. As the article clearly says there’s no “in context” requirement, and the conservative attorney is pretending that his client never appeared with Sen. Kennedy.

]]>