Out of the Blue

Been suffering with some odd black screen of death (which makes the old blue ones seem informative) with WinXP. According to the error message when I reboot my graphics adapter seems to suddenly be causing the problem, here's hoping someone at MS is studying all the reports on this I'm allowing Windows to phone home with.

Funny, after my comment about Friends yesterday, MrsBlue came home determined to check it out for the precise reason that we had never seen it before. This mirrored her experience with Seinfeld, a show I always enjoyed, but she likewise never saw until the finale. Now I can't figure out why this show was called Friends and not Lovers, in as much as they all seem to have hooked up with each other over the course of time.

I believe that nasty U.K. dialer pop-up dealie has been eradicated. If anyone should encounter it going forward, please let me know so I can get all crazy over this again, and otherwise, a thank you to all who showed patience when encountering this, and my heartfelt apologies for the whole ugly episode.

Link of the Day: Nintendo NES Controller Belt Buckles.
GeneSimmons.com. Thanks Bronco.
Science!: The Myth of the Beginning of Time. Thanks athlonseven.
NASA Funds Sci-Fi Technology.
Tiny robot walker made from DNA.
Images of the Day: Stereo Seal. Thanks Ant.
Auctions of the Day: (4) Exclusive Signed Mike Tyson Rape Trial Sketches. Thanks Sam. Unbelievable.
Deer Poop Earrings. Thanks evan.
Follow-ups: Moore accused of publicity stunt over Disney 'ban'
Stealing Back the Airwaves.
Thanks Mike Martinez
View : : :
36.
 
Re: Moore
May 7, 2004, 19:44
36.
Re: Moore May 7, 2004, 19:44
May 7, 2004, 19:44
 
Man I hate it when people don't READ before they open their mouths.
Zathrus
Oh, and while Disney has no right to prevent Miramax from distributing the movie, neither did Miramax ever sign a distribution deal with Moore or his agent. They provided financing, but never promised distribution.

Thanks for pointing that out, but when did Moore say different? Moore has never said he had a contract for distribution with Miramax, but It's obvious that Miramax would distribute the film if Disney allowed them.

Then in the article at the Independent Andrew Gumbel says,
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.

Moore does not say that he only learnt about this on Monday in that letter. Here is a quote from Moore's letter.
Yesterday I was told that Disney, the studio that owns Miramax, has officially decided to prohibit our producer, Miramax, from distributing my new film, "Fahrenheit 911."
Notice the key word in that sentence officially. This leaves open the possibility that Disney had unofficially made this statement before. Moore even acknowledges this elsewhere in his letter.
The whole story behind this (and other attempts) to kill our movie will be told in more detail as the days and weeks go on. For nearly a year, this struggle has been a lesson in just how difficult it is in this country to create a piece of art that might upset those in charge
Right there in his own letter Moore says "For nearly a year". Why would he say that if he found out only on Monday? I don't deny that it's convienent that this was made public before Cannes, but Moore has said that even though Miramax knew for a year that Disney did not want them to distribute this film they felt confident that they could convince Disney to let them distribute the film. Of course Miramax will make all of this public now, just before Cannes and not a year ago. It gives them far more leverage to convince Disney to let them distribute the film.

I just love how people try and shift the focus on a story like this. It's like defence attorneys trying to blame the rape victim for dressing provocatively and asking for it. Disney is the rapist here not Moore. I know it's an overly harsh comparison, but you get my point.

This comment was edited on May 7, 19:46.
Date
Subject
Author
1.
May 7, 2004May 7 2004
2.
May 7, 2004May 7 2004
4.
May 7, 2004May 7 2004
5.
May 7, 2004May 7 2004
7.
May 7, 2004May 7 2004
6.
May 7, 2004May 7 2004
9.
May 7, 2004May 7 2004
10.
May 7, 2004May 7 2004
3.
May 7, 2004May 7 2004
8.
May 7, 2004May 7 2004
19.
May 7, 2004May 7 2004
20.
May 7, 2004May 7 2004
24.
May 7, 2004May 7 2004
30.
May 7, 2004May 7 2004
   Re: Moore
33.
May 7, 2004May 7 2004
    Re: Moore
35.
May 7, 2004May 7 2004
     Re: Moore
 36.
May 7, 2004May 7 2004
   Re: Moore
27.
May 7, 2004May 7 2004
11.
May 7, 2004May 7 2004
12.
May 7, 2004May 7 2004
13.
May 7, 2004May 7 2004
15.
May 7, 2004May 7 2004
14.
May 7, 2004May 7 2004
16.
May 7, 2004May 7 2004
17.
May 7, 2004May 7 2004
39.
May 7, 2004May 7 2004
43.
May 7, 2004May 7 2004
44.
May 8, 2004May 8 2004
   Re: Ant
18.
May 7, 2004May 7 2004
21.
May 7, 2004May 7 2004
23.
May 7, 2004May 7 2004
34.
May 7, 2004May 7 2004
42.
May 7, 2004May 7 2004
29.
May 7, 2004May 7 2004
31.
May 7, 2004May 7 2004
22.
May 7, 2004May 7 2004
25.
May 7, 2004May 7 2004
26.
May 7, 2004May 7 2004
28.
May 7, 2004May 7 2004
32.
May 7, 2004May 7 2004
37.
May 7, 2004May 7 2004
38.
May 7, 2004May 7 2004
40.
May 7, 2004May 7 2004
41.
May 7, 2004May 7 2004
45.
May 8, 2004May 8 2004
46.
May 8, 2004May 8 2004
47.
May 8, 2004May 8 2004