MICHAEL DAVIS: If it walks like a duck…

Michael Davis

Master Of The Universe, Lord Of All Media, Most Interesting Black Man In the World, Sexiest Man on Earth, Mentor, Writer, Artist, Producer & Uppity.

You may also like...

8 Responses

  1. Vinnie Bartilucci says:

    Sorry, Michael. It's "Goldurn stubborn little…"Here's the link to Snopes, the best urban legend defuser on the web.As you say, you know what you heard. And the parents that sued Judas Priest know what they (or at least what their son) heard. And Wilson Bryan Key knows what he saw when he looked at the picture of the Clam Plate at Howard Johnson's all those years ago. And don't get me STARTED on the words to "Louie Louie" or "Blinded by the Light" (What the hell is a Doshen and why would want to rack one up,anyway?)This is the second of your articles in a row that I haven't quite seen the point of. Here, you try to compare a controversial court ruling to an urban legend with as much credence as the one about "Top Pop" having a chemical that causes impotence or the KKK owning Snapple. If your goal was to suggest that people will hear what they want to hear in situations, based on their life experiences, predjudices or beliefs, mission acconplished, but, I fear, at your own expense.If you were trying to show that people are willing to believe any old thing if it helps further their personal agenda, again, mission accomplished, but I don't see a clear link between that point and anything positive, like a suggestion that people NOT do that.Now the one about Dark Side of the Moon and the Wizard of Oz, THAT'S completely true, and I don't care what anybody tells me.

  2. Alan Coil says:

    I am offended that you used the word nitwit.

  3. Michael Davis says:

    My point is to arrive at a decision without weighing everyone else's opinion. I went to the website you posted BEFORE I wrote the piece. You make my point-just because the close caption says 'nitwit' and a so called 'best urban legend defuser on the net' said it was false should I just agree? I KNOW what I heard. Someone in a movie can say "Kiss my butt" and the close cption can say 'Pizza' do I then forget I heard 'Kiss my Butt?' As far as your examples where parents and others know what they saw as well as heard. You again make my point-I am NOT swayed by what they think nor can I speak for them. I know what I heard.I could care less about anyone else. As far as last weeks piece goes, I'm a simple guy Vinnie. There is no hidden meaning in my rants.That's why I call this Straight no Chaser. Last weeks point was this- vicious rumors with no basis in fact is just stupid and childish. All this aside-I do enjoy your feedback.

    • Alan Coil says:

      I agree that the captioning may be wrong. There was a movie about 4-5 years ago that had subtitles. The subtitle referred to 'Chess', while it was obvious that the game being played was 'Go'. Both are strategic games, but are not the same. So, yes, the captioning may be different than the spoken words.

  4. Vinnie Bartilucci says:

    Before I start in, a bit of back up…I believe that people should use the best arguments possible to support their convictions, and when I see weaknesses in said arguments (whether I support them or not) I just have to point them out, and in some cases get quite vehement in my objections. My Mom (bless her) would want to do things, and when I asked her why, would give the most insane, inexplicable reasons. Reasons so left-fieldian that no matter how much I knew what she meant, and why she wanted to do the thing, I just HAD to call her on it. I wanted to buy a car, and she didn't want to buy that car. When I asked why, she said "It's yellow. It'll attract bees in the summer". Only after several minutes of discussion did she finally relent that it was because it wasn't an American made car, and (since my dad was a GM employee till his death) she preferred to buy an American car. A perfectly reasonable (even if not completely defensible) standpoint, and one I accepted. But the stupidity of her first argument was SO blatant, I couldn't help but to argue it.I'm also inherently skeptical of conspiracy theories. I adore them, and love to hear them, but when I meet people who really believe them, I want to go toe-to-toe with them. The only reason I don't is because I know I'm just beating my head against a wall (and I don't do that unless I've actually done something wrong worthy of such punishment- ask my wife) and wasting my time. I usually just shake my head and walk away. Usually.So I'm not going on about this because I'm coming to the defense of a classic of the animated art, I'm going about it because it was a poor (and easily rebutted) example of your argument, and you believing such a thing lowers your credibility (in my eyes anyway) to the level of the people who buy the aforementioned Top Pop or Snapple stories.Here's how I read your article:"I KNOW I heard the cop say 'get up' on the video. And I KNOW I heard Donald Duck call Daffy a (Negative expletive for the urban community) in Roger Rabbit". Since it patently obvious (to me) that your interpretation of the second video clip is wrong, it puts your interpretation of the first into serious question.>>>"I went to the website you posted BEFORE I wrote the piece."And yet you chose to point out the far LESS reasonable suggestion of "nitwit" rather than the far more intelligible (and more easy to hear when you click on the sample of the scene on the snopes site) "little". Interesting. Often, the evidence that is ignored in an argument is more telling than the evidence that is used. Ask Mike Nifong and Al Gore.True enough, most of the pages Google pulls up about the "controversy" use the "nitwit" line. But a brief read of those pages reveals that they're all practically the same verbiage, as most of the pages (like from About.com and Answers.com) are quoted from (and in some cases, automatically generated from) the Wiki source. Ironically, that connects to comments I made about last weeks article, on how easily one can declare something as "fact" by finding the same statement on three different websites. Snopes, on the other hand, lists three seperate sources of reference, and includes the sound byte so you can decide for yourself. Which you, apparently, have done.But your point is, "I know what I know, and facts and/or evidence to the contrary be damned"? Okay, but as I said, it calls your opinion of the first video clip (which I have not seen so I have no opinion or agenda regarding it) under suspicion.The Vista (2-disc) edition of the Roger Rabbit DVD uses "little" in their subtitles. And while I haven't pulled out my copy of the Laserdisc to check, I'll accept that it said "nitwit". But as anyone who's ever watched closed captioning will tell you, they quite often vary from the script. Sometimes they have to paraphrase long speeches to keep up with the narrative on screen, sometimes they can't make out the lines from the soundtrack, but they don't always match up with what the actors said. My wife has a story about a blatant error in the "Rear Window" subtitling where she actually wrote to (and got an answer from) the man in charge of the restoration of the film and he admitted she was right about the error.Plus, let's jump in with the standard question I ask of any theory like this…WHY? Who would possibly benefit from putting a line like that in a children's film, "different time" or no? And if there was any suggestion of an inkling of the truth of the statement, wouldn't they have done something about it by now? They fixed Jessica's bare crotch in a couple frames later in the film, they were happy to change the lyrics to "Arabian Nights" in Aladdin to appease an Arab group, surely they'd have no problem removing such a term if it were there. This is a company that won't release Song of the South in this country (tho it's widely available all over the rest of the planet) because of what might concievably be said about it.Im not going to belabor this any further, as I'm sadly confident that I will not convince you otherwise, much as I was never able to convince my mother-in-law (an otherwise bright and rational woman) of the lack of veracity of the work of "psychic" John Edward. I'll end with the last line of the Snopes page. "Maybe the real answer is that if you're convinced you're supposed to hear something, you'll hear it."And right now, both of us are nodding our heads, saying "Yes, EXACTLY…"

  5. Michael Davis says:

    Vinnie,As wonderfully as you make your argument I stand by my statements. I said in the piece that I don't think there is any grand scheme here just some people trying to pull a fast one. I see no' conspiracy theories'. As far as 'why?' Who the heck knows? Why did Marvel buy a distributor in the 90's? Why did Jessica Alba just say that she is not Latino? Why are we still in Iraq? Why did OJ get off? Why did thousands of people wait in line for the I-phone when there was no shortage of supply? Why did I watch 'Showgirls'? The world is littered with stupid things that people do. Because it makes no sense is no reason to doubt that stupid things happens.Be that as it is-I really love your way of thinking. I don't agree with a lot of it but you make a well thought out point. like you I'm done with this. I did enjoy the debate however.

  6. John Tebbel says:

    In my role as Zen carny I suggest that we are not meant to exactly understand what Donald Duck is saying, at least in a Western "either/or" sense. What we believe him to be saying is always true and always mistaken, a randomizing event in the universe, like a three game playoff. But, as language is usage, we must analyze each interpretation as if it were true. As Perry White, I'll send Olsen off to camp on the doorstep of voice artist Tony Anselmo, to ask him what he said, whether it was in the script or an improvisation.