What was the last movie you've seen?

[Luke]

Huh? Two separate discussions.

1) Radio Show

2) Movie

Similarities:

Both are fictitious.

Not sure where you see the moonwalking.

[dsheinem]

Huh? Two separate discussions.

1) Radio Show

2) Movie

Similarities:

Both are fictitious.

Not sure where you see the moonwalking.

You were first claiming the whole movie was made up, then just that the guests in it were paid off to make up stuff, than that just some of the calls in the radio portions were scripted, than just that the movie is meant to make people like Stern. By my read, you are "moonwalking" away from some pretty unfounded claims towards some that are not at all contentious.

[Luke]

Sorry to edit your post, but it is only for clarification's sake.

1) You were first claiming the whole movie was made up.

2) then just that the guests in it were paid off to make up stuff

3)than that just some of the calls in the radio portions were scripted,

4) than just that the movie is meant to make people like Stern. By my read, you are "moonwalking" away from some pretty unfounded claims towards some that are not at all contentious.

1) The movie is an act of fiction. None of it true? Of course not. Every movie is an act of fiction. PP portrays Howard as almost a loveable loser. He's not.

2) Yes. Howard had plants.

3) Yes. Calls were scripted.

4) The movie is all about how great Stern is and how people misunderstand his ways.

[dsheinem]

My point is that

The movie is an act of fiction. None of it true? Of course not. Every movie is an act of fiction. PP portrays Howard as almost a loveable loser. He's not.

is a pretty far cry from

How dumb are the people who think this is what happened? They have to be really, really dumb...Believing almost anything in the entire movie is the equivalent of believing chirss angel can levitate.

or general claims that the movie is made-up bullshit, pulling wool, etc.

I just take issue with your general characterization of the film. The movie is based on Stern's actual rise to fame, so while some events/names are changed/condensed, it still is a fairly accurate (e.g. true to what really happened and has been documented as such) account of Stern's life and - yes - his going from a nerdy kid in high school (a "loser") to someone that is loved by a huge audience. That the film is a giant ego stroke or that it emphasizes Stern's triumphs doesn't make it not true, nor does the fact that it was profitable. There's no "obvious bullshit" other than the stuff that Stern puts in the film and clearly points out as such (e.g. scripted stuff on the air, goofy cameos, etc.). It's a fun/Stern-filtered version of his past, but it is also a fairly accepted account of non-fictional events in the history of his radio career and personal life.

[Luke]

or general claims that the movie is made-up bullshit, pulling wool, etc.

I just take issue with your general characterization of the film. The movie is based on Stern's actual rise to fame, so while some events/names are changed/condensed, it still is a fairly accurate (e.g. true to what really happened and has been documented as such) account of Stern's life and - yes - his going from a nerdy kid in high school (a "loser") to someone that is loved by a huge audience. That the film is a giant ego stroke or that it emphasizes Stern's triumphs doesn't make it not true, nor does the fact that it was profitable. There's no "obvious bullshit" other than the stuff that Stern puts in the film and clearly points out as such (e.g. scripted stuff on the air, goofy cameos, etc.). It's a fun/Stern-filtered version of his past, but it is also a fairly accepted account of non-fictional events in the history of his radio career and personal life.

I'll say that if snopes went through the movie, it would be generally a mix of green and red. But the embellishment is way over the top. The film isn't accounts of what people had with Stern, it's Stern, Stern's story, Stern's way. And yeah, that's how biopics work sometimes.

But watch it again and see if your opinion changes. Mine did. If the movie wasn't on a friend's tv I would have changed the channel, not that I wasn't tempted to do anyway.

[dsheinem]

I'll say that if snopes went through the movie, it would be generally a mix of green and red. But the embellishment is way over the top. The film isn't accounts of what people had with Stern, it's Stern, Stern's story, Stern's way. And yeah, that's how biopics work sometimes.

Snopes has a film section, PP is not on it.

I just think that if there was even some substance to your claims about stuff in the film (or book, or show) masquerading as true when it is patently false, there would be scads of websites and blogs and other online arguments showing as much across the web. I suppose since the viewaskew forums or whatever are down that the storehouse of truth is currently MIA, but I can't seem to find much of anything else - no snopes site, no Stern fan sites, no reviews, etc. - that take the film to task for passing off fiction as fact. You may have determined in your own mind that the film's a giant construction of mostly untrue things made to benefit Howard, Inc….but there is NO SUPPORT for that claim anywhere. Given how many people despise Stern, that absence of damning criticism is deafening.

[Luke]

I just think that if there was even some substance to your claims about stuff in the film (or book, or show) masquerading as true when it is patently false, there would be scads of websites and blogs and other online arguments showing as much across the web. I suppose since the viewaskew forums or whatever are down that the storehouse of truth is currently MIA, but I can't seem to find much of anything else - no snopes site, no Stern fan sites, no reviews, etc. - that take the film to task for passing off fiction as fact. You may have determined in your own mind that the film's a giant construction of mostly untrue things made to benefit Howard, Inc….but there is NO SUPPORT for that claim anywhere. Given how many people despise Stern, that absence of damning criticism is deafening.

I checked snopes as well. They are usually my go to website when it comes to "Uh-huh!" and "Nuh-uh!" arguments.

As far as KS, VA, NA...take it for what it is. I have never determined fiction from people I don't believe are telling fact. Simply passing information I believe from people in the know.

When is the last time you have watched the movie? You say you haven't watched it in some time no? Maybe watch it again with your older and bigger noggin.

[dsheinem]

When is the last time you have watched the movie? You say you haven't watched it in some time no? Maybe watch it again with your older and bigger noggin.

It isn't about me being older/having a bigger noggin, it is about how much of the film is demonstrably true or false. You were arguing quite clearly that you felt it was a bunch of BS that was being made up, I asked you to substantiate that claim and you haven't…instead you've just shifted the argument time and again.

You have a larger pattern of arguing this way on a wide range of topics. We got into it recently with a bunch of unsubstantiated claims about how NFL owners run their team, and you kept adjusting your position every time a claim would be debunked…or you did the same earlier this summer when you were making up shit about the age of college football players. We also did this dance around how to get good advising help in college, how to write about games for various audiences, Tony Romo stats, etc. There's just this pattern of you stating things matter-of-factly that just aren't facts at all, and then when you get called on the problem you do stuff like "well, if you knew what I knew" or "well, maybe when you are older" or "well, you just don't know the whole story," etc. It gets old.

It's not too much, I don't think, to expect that if you want to make an argument about something that you be able to show reasonable grounds to support your claims.

[Luke]

When is the last time you have watched the movie? You say you haven't watched it in some time no? Maybe watch it again with your older and bigger noggin.

It isn't about me being older/having a bigger noggin, it is about how much of the film is demonstrably true or false. You were arguing quite clearly that you felt it was a bunch of BS that was being made up, I asked you to substantiate that claim and you haven't…instead you've just shifted the argument time and again.

You have a larger pattern of arguing this way on a wide range of topics. We got into it recently with a bunch of unsubstantiated claims about how NFL owners run their team, and you kept adjusting your position every time a claim would be debunked…or you did the same earlier this summer when you were making up shit about the age of college football players. We also did this dance around how to get good advising help in college, how to write about games for various audiences, Tony Romo stats, etc. There's just this pattern of you stating things matter-of-factly that just aren't facts at all, and then when you get called on the problem you do stuff like "well, if you knew what I knew" or "well, maybe when you are older" or "well, you just don't know the whole story," etc. It gets old.

It's not too much, I don't think, to expect that if you want to make an argument about something that you be able to show reasonable grounds to support your claims.

Or maybe I don't entertain the fact of having to "prove" to you that the proof is already in the pudding. You keep using the word "argument", I'm stating my opinion, not arguing.

For fuck's sake, asking you to watch a movie again isn't asking you to part the seas.

Mr. Mole Hill, meet "Dr."Mountain (who uses emoticons).

[TSTR]

Oh no, we're not gonna do the "what is an argument" thing again, are we?