Disney-paranoids
[email protected]
<< > There's the historical inaccuracy issue
<<I don't get this one. The movies are designed for entertainment,
not for historical accuracy. That's obvious enough. >>
Historical fiction is often inaccurate.
NON-fiction is often inaccurate.
Some of the most inacurate stuff going is the information taught in schools.
-=-> They also are playing a part in the extension of copyright
protection laws -
If you owned the rights to something your father or grandfather had written
or recorded and you liked getting royalties, you might be in favor ot extension
of copyright protection too.
As to Michael Moore's stupid movie, he's a liar in the movie and about the
movie.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3565069&thesection=news&the
subsection=world
Michael Moore admits Disney 'ban' was a stunt
07.05.2004
By ANDREW GUMBEL in Los Angeles
Less than 24 hours after accusing the Walt Disney Company of pulling the plug
on his latest documentary in a blata attempt at political censorship, the
rabble-rousing film-maker Michael Moore has admitted he knew a
Zyear ago that Disney had no intention of distributing it.
The admission, during an interview with CNN, undermined Moore's claim that
Disney was trying to sabotage the US release of Fahrenheit 911 just days before
its world premiere at the Cannes film festival.
Instead, it lent credence to a growing suspicion that Moore was manufacturing
a controversy to help publicise the film, a full-bore attack on the Bush
administration and its handling of national security since the attacks of 11
September 2001.
In an indignant letter to his supporters, Moore said he had learnt only on
Monday that Disney had put the kibosh on distributing the film, which has been
financed by the semi-independent Disney subsidiary Miramax.
But in the CNN interview he said: "Almost a year ago, after we'd started
making the film, the chairman of Disney, Michael Eisner, told my agent he was
upset Miramax had made the film and he will not distribute it."
Nobody in Hollywood doubts Fahrenheit 911 will find a US distributor. His
last documentary, Bowling for Columbine, made for US$3m pulled in US$22m at the
US box office.
But Moore's publicity stunt, if that is what is, appears to be working.
A front-page news piece in The New York Times was followed yesterday by an
editorial denouncing Disney for censorship and denial of Moore's right to free
expression.
Moore told CNN that Disney had "signed a contract to distribute this [film]"
but got cold feet. But Disney executives insists there was never any contract.
And a source close to Miramax said that the only deal there was for
financing, not for distribution.
<<I don't get this one. The movies are designed for entertainment,
not for historical accuracy. That's obvious enough. >>
Historical fiction is often inaccurate.
NON-fiction is often inaccurate.
Some of the most inacurate stuff going is the information taught in schools.
-=-> They also are playing a part in the extension of copyright
protection laws -
> which many believe is a reason for the lack of originality incontemporary
> arts and I believe causes some issues for library distributiontoo. -=-
If you owned the rights to something your father or grandfather had written
or recorded and you liked getting royalties, you might be in favor ot extension
of copyright protection too.
As to Michael Moore's stupid movie, he's a liar in the movie and about the
movie.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3565069&thesection=news&the
subsection=world
Michael Moore admits Disney 'ban' was a stunt
07.05.2004
By ANDREW GUMBEL in Los Angeles
Less than 24 hours after accusing the Walt Disney Company of pulling the plug
on his latest documentary in a blata attempt at political censorship, the
rabble-rousing film-maker Michael Moore has admitted he knew a
Zyear ago that Disney had no intention of distributing it.
The admission, during an interview with CNN, undermined Moore's claim that
Disney was trying to sabotage the US release of Fahrenheit 911 just days before
its world premiere at the Cannes film festival.
Instead, it lent credence to a growing suspicion that Moore was manufacturing
a controversy to help publicise the film, a full-bore attack on the Bush
administration and its handling of national security since the attacks of 11
September 2001.
In an indignant letter to his supporters, Moore said he had learnt only on
Monday that Disney had put the kibosh on distributing the film, which has been
financed by the semi-independent Disney subsidiary Miramax.
But in the CNN interview he said: "Almost a year ago, after we'd started
making the film, the chairman of Disney, Michael Eisner, told my agent he was
upset Miramax had made the film and he will not distribute it."
Nobody in Hollywood doubts Fahrenheit 911 will find a US distributor. His
last documentary, Bowling for Columbine, made for US$3m pulled in US$22m at the
US box office.
But Moore's publicity stunt, if that is what is, appears to be working.
A front-page news piece in The New York Times was followed yesterday by an
editorial denouncing Disney for censorship and denial of Moore's right to free
expression.
Moore told CNN that Disney had "signed a contract to distribute this [film]"
but got cold feet. But Disney executives insists there was never any contract.
And a source close to Miramax said that the only deal there was for
financing, not for distribution.
Sondra Carr
-----Original Message-----
From: SandraDodd@... [mailto:SandraDodd@...]
Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 1:59 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [UnschoolingDiscussion] Disney-paranoids
If you owned the rights to something your father or grandfather had written
or recorded and you liked getting royalties, you might be in favor ot
extension
of copyright protection too.
[Sondra replies:] Actually - I'm an artist - so I approach this from the
perspective of someone who actually would have to give up royalties - but
I'm looking at a bigger picture and to be honest, for a long time (probably
because I DID have a vested interest like that) I couldn't see how much this
really hurts us - artists and laymen as a whole. But as an artist - or
thinker, writer, etc. - it's important that we see how too much copyright
protection actually hurts our ability to exchange ideas in the fluid way
needed for progress. I'm not advocating no copyright protection - just sane
protection that helps those who have ideas and also continues the long
tradition we have had of allowing free exchange by relatively quickly making
ideas public domain. That doesn't take away the original artist's ability to
market his ideas - it just takes the exclusivity away. And as I said - I
would stand to lose that exclusivity myself as an artist - but I would gain
so much more by being able to tap that great conversation.
As to Michael Moore's stupid movie, he's a liar in the movie and about the
movie.
[Sondra replies:] This could well be - I wouldn't put it past Moore. I
haven't researched this - I was just offering it as one of the reasons
people feel they should boycott. I'd have to research both sides of that
issue to really find what I believe. I'd no more believe Disney reps than I
would believe Moore. They both has some heavy vested interest.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
From: SandraDodd@... [mailto:SandraDodd@...]
Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 1:59 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [UnschoolingDiscussion] Disney-paranoids
If you owned the rights to something your father or grandfather had written
or recorded and you liked getting royalties, you might be in favor ot
extension
of copyright protection too.
[Sondra replies:] Actually - I'm an artist - so I approach this from the
perspective of someone who actually would have to give up royalties - but
I'm looking at a bigger picture and to be honest, for a long time (probably
because I DID have a vested interest like that) I couldn't see how much this
really hurts us - artists and laymen as a whole. But as an artist - or
thinker, writer, etc. - it's important that we see how too much copyright
protection actually hurts our ability to exchange ideas in the fluid way
needed for progress. I'm not advocating no copyright protection - just sane
protection that helps those who have ideas and also continues the long
tradition we have had of allowing free exchange by relatively quickly making
ideas public domain. That doesn't take away the original artist's ability to
market his ideas - it just takes the exclusivity away. And as I said - I
would stand to lose that exclusivity myself as an artist - but I would gain
so much more by being able to tap that great conversation.
As to Michael Moore's stupid movie, he's a liar in the movie and about the
movie.
[Sondra replies:] This could well be - I wouldn't put it past Moore. I
haven't researched this - I was just offering it as one of the reasons
people feel they should boycott. I'd have to research both sides of that
issue to really find what I believe. I'd no more believe Disney reps than I
would believe Moore. They both has some heavy vested interest.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
In a message dated 10/6/2004 2:24:55 PM Mountain Daylight Time,
sondracarr@... writes:
As to Michael Moore's stupid movie, he's a liar in the movie and about the
movie.
[Sondra replies:] This could well be - I wouldn't put it past Moore. I
haven't researched this - I was just offering it as one of the reasons
people feel they should boycott.
==========
If people have bad reasons, then they should NOT boycott.
They should spend that furious energy learning to research things before they
made decisions. It's good for their families and for their kids and for
themselves.
Of course it's legal for homeschooling families to base their beliefs and
"curriculum" and all on whatever they want to. Fundamental Christian homscholing
curriculae have set that precedent by using skewed history and very
questionable "science."
I hate to see liberals do anything even faintly resembling tht, but some do.
Some people will get their information from e-mail chain letters and such
places, and not bother to check the sources for themselves.
Its not the best path to productive, flowing unschooling.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
sondracarr@... writes:
As to Michael Moore's stupid movie, he's a liar in the movie and about the
movie.
[Sondra replies:] This could well be - I wouldn't put it past Moore. I
haven't researched this - I was just offering it as one of the reasons
people feel they should boycott.
==========
If people have bad reasons, then they should NOT boycott.
They should spend that furious energy learning to research things before they
made decisions. It's good for their families and for their kids and for
themselves.
Of course it's legal for homeschooling families to base their beliefs and
"curriculum" and all on whatever they want to. Fundamental Christian homscholing
curriculae have set that precedent by using skewed history and very
questionable "science."
I hate to see liberals do anything even faintly resembling tht, but some do.
Some people will get their information from e-mail chain letters and such
places, and not bother to check the sources for themselves.
Its not the best path to productive, flowing unschooling.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Demetria
Everything in the Moore movie has been in the news.
A great source is www.democracynow.org
Heart of Herbs- Herbal and Aromatherapy Education
Come and see all of the classes we have to offer!
http://www.heartofherbs.com <http://www.heartofherbs.com/>
_____
From: Sondra Carr [mailto:sondracarr@...]
Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 4:24 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [UnschoolingDiscussion] Disney-paranoids
-----Original Message-----
From: SandraDodd@... [mailto:SandraDodd@...]
Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 1:59 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [UnschoolingDiscussion] Disney-paranoids
If you owned the rights to something your father or grandfather had written
or recorded and you liked getting royalties, you might be in favor ot
extension
of copyright protection too.
[Sondra replies:] Actually - I'm an artist - so I approach this from the
perspective of someone who actually would have to give up royalties - but
I'm looking at a bigger picture and to be honest, for a long time (probably
because I DID have a vested interest like that) I couldn't see how much this
really hurts us - artists and laymen as a whole. But as an artist - or
thinker, writer, etc. - it's important that we see how too much copyright
protection actually hurts our ability to exchange ideas in the fluid way
needed for progress. I'm not advocating no copyright protection - just sane
protection that helps those who have ideas and also continues the long
tradition we have had of allowing free exchange by relatively quickly making
ideas public domain. That doesn't take away the original artist's ability to
market his ideas - it just takes the exclusivity away. And as I said - I
would stand to lose that exclusivity myself as an artist - but I would gain
so much more by being able to tap that great conversation.
As to Michael Moore's stupid movie, he's a liar in the movie and about the
movie.
[Sondra replies:] This could well be - I wouldn't put it past Moore. I
haven't researched this - I was just offering it as one of the reasons
people feel they should boycott. I'd have to research both sides of that
issue to really find what I believe. I'd no more believe Disney reps than I
would believe Moore. They both has some heavy vested interest.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
"List Posting Policies" are provided in the files area of this group.
Visit the Unschooling website and message boards: http://www.unschooling.com
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
<http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=129dn2hd1/M=294855.5468653.6549235.3001176/D=gr
oups/S=1705081972:HM/EXP=1097180655/A=2376776/R=0/SIG=11ldm1jvc/*http://prom
otions.yahoo.com/ydomains2004/index.html> click here
<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=294855.5468653.6549235.3001176/D=groups/S=
:HM/A=2376776/rand=198997449>
_____
Yahoo! Groups Links
* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/UnschoolingDiscussion/
* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]?subject=Unsubscrib
e>
* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
A great source is www.democracynow.org
Heart of Herbs- Herbal and Aromatherapy Education
Come and see all of the classes we have to offer!
http://www.heartofherbs.com <http://www.heartofherbs.com/>
_____
From: Sondra Carr [mailto:sondracarr@...]
Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 4:24 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [UnschoolingDiscussion] Disney-paranoids
-----Original Message-----
From: SandraDodd@... [mailto:SandraDodd@...]
Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 1:59 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [UnschoolingDiscussion] Disney-paranoids
If you owned the rights to something your father or grandfather had written
or recorded and you liked getting royalties, you might be in favor ot
extension
of copyright protection too.
[Sondra replies:] Actually - I'm an artist - so I approach this from the
perspective of someone who actually would have to give up royalties - but
I'm looking at a bigger picture and to be honest, for a long time (probably
because I DID have a vested interest like that) I couldn't see how much this
really hurts us - artists and laymen as a whole. But as an artist - or
thinker, writer, etc. - it's important that we see how too much copyright
protection actually hurts our ability to exchange ideas in the fluid way
needed for progress. I'm not advocating no copyright protection - just sane
protection that helps those who have ideas and also continues the long
tradition we have had of allowing free exchange by relatively quickly making
ideas public domain. That doesn't take away the original artist's ability to
market his ideas - it just takes the exclusivity away. And as I said - I
would stand to lose that exclusivity myself as an artist - but I would gain
so much more by being able to tap that great conversation.
As to Michael Moore's stupid movie, he's a liar in the movie and about the
movie.
[Sondra replies:] This could well be - I wouldn't put it past Moore. I
haven't researched this - I was just offering it as one of the reasons
people feel they should boycott. I'd have to research both sides of that
issue to really find what I believe. I'd no more believe Disney reps than I
would believe Moore. They both has some heavy vested interest.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
"List Posting Policies" are provided in the files area of this group.
Visit the Unschooling website and message boards: http://www.unschooling.com
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
<http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=129dn2hd1/M=294855.5468653.6549235.3001176/D=gr
oups/S=1705081972:HM/EXP=1097180655/A=2376776/R=0/SIG=11ldm1jvc/*http://prom
otions.yahoo.com/ydomains2004/index.html> click here
<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=294855.5468653.6549235.3001176/D=groups/S=
:HM/A=2376776/rand=198997449>
_____
Yahoo! Groups Links
* To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/UnschoolingDiscussion/
* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]?subject=Unsubscrib
e>
* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Nisha
--- In [email protected], SandraDodd@a... wrote:
Limbaugh. Both are extremeists that you have to look at everything
they say with a healthy dose of skepticism. There is usually some
truth in what they say, it's just buried. They are both really well
informed about a variety of things, but what they put out is very
skewed to their point of view. The truth is probably somewhere around
the middle.
Nisha
> As to Michael Moore's stupid movie, he's a liar in the movie andabout the
> movie.I look at him as being the opposite side of the same coin as Rush
Limbaugh. Both are extremeists that you have to look at everything
they say with a healthy dose of skepticism. There is usually some
truth in what they say, it's just buried. They are both really well
informed about a variety of things, but what they put out is very
skewed to their point of view. The truth is probably somewhere around
the middle.
Nisha
[email protected]
The only people I knew about in the past that boycotted Disney were
fundamental Christians,...something to do with Disneyworld having a "Gay
Day"....which they were never behind. It was just a day that large groups of homosexuals
and lesbians agreed to meet at Disneyworld and spend the day there. Disney
was never a "sponsor" of the event. (They are very fair, though, from what I
understand, about hiring Gays and Lesbians.)
I know that Disney employs many, MANY artists, musicians, actors...it
doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me to boycott them if you care about the arts
and folks actually making a living with their trade.
Lastly (and I'm sorry if this sounds like I'm a Disney cheerleader :o) I
heard once on Paul Harvey's show (you know, "The Rest of the Story") a long, sad
story about a boy and his brother who were pretty badly abused, mentally and
physically...locked in their basement for bad behavior, etc. Turns out it
was Walt Disney and his brother. I know that his opening of Disneyland in the
50's was because he wanted a wonderful, fantasy type place different from
regular "thrill" type amusement parks...something more family friendly for
people with young and older children. Maybe it had to do with wanting to
recapture his lost childhood...who knows....
I'm not starry eyed about the Disney Empire...believe me...I just think
there are so many more "evil empires" out there...Disney is WAY towards the
bottom of the list, if on the list at all....JMO
Nancy B.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
fundamental Christians,...something to do with Disneyworld having a "Gay
Day"....which they were never behind. It was just a day that large groups of homosexuals
and lesbians agreed to meet at Disneyworld and spend the day there. Disney
was never a "sponsor" of the event. (They are very fair, though, from what I
understand, about hiring Gays and Lesbians.)
I know that Disney employs many, MANY artists, musicians, actors...it
doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me to boycott them if you care about the arts
and folks actually making a living with their trade.
Lastly (and I'm sorry if this sounds like I'm a Disney cheerleader :o) I
heard once on Paul Harvey's show (you know, "The Rest of the Story") a long, sad
story about a boy and his brother who were pretty badly abused, mentally and
physically...locked in their basement for bad behavior, etc. Turns out it
was Walt Disney and his brother. I know that his opening of Disneyland in the
50's was because he wanted a wonderful, fantasy type place different from
regular "thrill" type amusement parks...something more family friendly for
people with young and older children. Maybe it had to do with wanting to
recapture his lost childhood...who knows....
I'm not starry eyed about the Disney Empire...believe me...I just think
there are so many more "evil empires" out there...Disney is WAY towards the
bottom of the list, if on the list at all....JMO
Nancy B.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
In a message dated 10/6/2004 4:36:03 PM Mountain Daylight Time,
nishamartin@... writes:
Limbaugh. Both are extremeists that you have to look at everything
they say with a healthy dose of skepticism. There is usually some
truth in what they say, it's just buried. >>
===========================
Then I think the thing to do is to ignore them both.
If there's a turd in the lemonade, I'd just rather not drink any at all than
to say, "Really, there's a lot of good lemonade in there--just drink around
the turd."
Worse, people don't know what parts are true and what's nonsense, so
everything is suspect. They turn truth to turds.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
nishamartin@... writes:
> As to Michael Moore's stupid movie, he's a liar in the movie andabout the
> movie.<<I look at him as being the opposite side of the same coin as Rush
Limbaugh. Both are extremeists that you have to look at everything
they say with a healthy dose of skepticism. There is usually some
truth in what they say, it's just buried. >>
===========================
Then I think the thing to do is to ignore them both.
If there's a turd in the lemonade, I'd just rather not drink any at all than
to say, "Really, there's a lot of good lemonade in there--just drink around
the turd."
Worse, people don't know what parts are true and what's nonsense, so
everything is suspect. They turn truth to turds.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]