Michael Moore and his bullshit (Bowling for Columbine)

[SHAFTR]

[

Give me one example of a documentary... ONE... that is purely objective. Art is never purely objective.

Actually there is thousands of documentarys that are purely objective. In fact, if you put down that tv dinner down in your hands, and turn on the A & E channel tonight, you might see a couple. Blackie maybe you can understand the concept like this, Imagine your in a room, with all white walls, and there you front of you, is a TV. Now imagine your watching a Documentary on SEA ALGAE. Yep, SEA ALGAE. Now, if the producers or director decided to throw in false statistics about how sea algae kills babys and small rodents, then this documentary would not be presented objectively. Or if the producers decided to add fictional material to the SEA ALGAE film, then this would not be presented objectively. So now you should understand that documentary's are objective all the fucking time! Oh, and heres an example for you, try New York: A documentary Film... Its an objective documentary, so yes, art can be objective. Or check out, Woody Guthrie (It's great).


chris

you are a poo poo head.

(I would have written a more clever and intelligent response but not until you exhibit either quality)

[Jeremy Blackman]

http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

Yes, that's the source of all of this, copied, duplicated, proliferated, and perpetuated all across the internet. It's all the same thing, like RK said.

How about this for research? Take that address, http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html, and delete everything after ".net" This will take you to www.hardylaw.net, where you will find out that David T. Hardy is an attorney in Arizona. Spend 2 minutes on Google, and you'll find out that he's an attorney for the NRA (which for some strange reason he doesn't include in his bio). Like I said several posts ago.

Now, if the producers or director decided to throw in false statistics about how sea algae kills babys and small rodents, then this documentary would not be presented objectively. Or if the producers decided to add fictional material to the SEA ALGAE film, then this would not be presented objectively. So now you should understand that documentary's are objective all the fucking time!

If only it were that simple. Context is everything. Everything has a context. People are subjective, and if something is made by a person (especially a movie) it is by definition subjective.


Do you realize how many times you called me "Blackie" in your argument? Or more importantly, do you realize how immature that is?

Or, let's just cut to the chase, do you realize that harassing people simply because they don't agree with you is not tolerated here (I believe I said something like this before)?

I have argued this exact topic with many other people here before, and they never called me "Blackie" to strengthen their argument.

[aclockworkjj]

Or, let's just cut to the chase, do you realize that harassing people simply because they don't agree with you is not tolerated here (I believe I said something like this before)?

Yeah...make they are fuckin' phony or something first!!!!!  

you guys, seriously, you are arguing personal attacks over michael moore.  shaftr had the best response i have seen so far.  you are all being "poo-poo heads"...stop ganging up oh him as P was doing just fine.  

Now, to make this a fair sharks and jets sorta ordeal.  Moore is still a fuckin' idiot for ranting his liberal bullshit at the oscars.  It's not the place for such garbage, and I wonder how the other "filmmakers" felt when Moore took it apon his own dipshit self to speak so intelligently for all documentary "filmmakers".  

no....BOOO, BOOO to you Mr. Moore!!!!!!

[Pedro]

just curious, and i agree that the oscars aren't really fit for his behavior, but would you feel so bad if moore was yelling conservative bullshit?  and be honest, darling...

[aclockworkjj]

and be honest, darling...

yes...cause ....shhhh....i am not a conservative.  I only got labeled that by disaggreeing with liberal opinions.  If Moore woulda praised Bush there, I woulda called him a dipshit then too.  It's a lot easier to point out faults in a person of power than agree with them tho.

I don't take any set of political beliefs to heart...i take individual ones.  I don't agree with federally supporting some crackhead and her 9 bebe's kids...as well as i don't agree with...say...deforestization.  "JJ the conservative" was created by the few that are very open in their liberalism, not by me.  Politics are a joke to me, fuck...I don't even vote.  I would be more than happy to point out conservative faults too...just so happens most people here are liberals.  Yes, i like starting debates...sadly, someone usually gets all butt hurt.  Umm. just look at what happened here.

[Pedro]

you should vote.

[Pubrick]

this is depressing.

[Pedro]

a little bit.

[aclockworkjj]

well....after looking over this thread, which at least had a few constructivly conversing.  It changed right here.  What is depressing, is how something as fuckin' stupid as a signature (from "the idiot here") can turn into an onslaught.

[Pubrick]

well....after looking over this thread, which at least had a few constructivly conversing.  It changed right here.  What is depressing, is how something as fuckin' stupid as a signature (from "the idiot here") can turn into an onslaught.

uh, ok, since u obviously didn't read the thread, i will recap.

i asked him why he targetted me in his sig, i don't know him, i've never said anything to him other than a few months ago to ask him why he felt like dissing me for no reason. he chose to ignore every PM i sent him, which is clear since he quoted one, he WANTED to bring it to the thread, i said i didn't want to. i sent him many PMs saying the same thing, assuming maybe he couldn't work the inbox function, finally i said fine.. and brought the two simple questions to this thread. he still ignores them.

in case u didn't notice, the main argument against this fool is that his opinion is misinformed and clearly STUPID. notice, u are the only one who is defending him. notice, u are using this latest anti-admin non-sensical idiot to fuel ur latest spontaneous rampage. notice, u even joked about it before when u had the chance to start crying.

stay out of this sig thing, jj, i wouldn't be surprised if u encouraged him to be an asshole. like u've done to so many idiots before. i don't blame u, i've come to the conclusion u are a severe schizophrenic. argue the michael moore case cos that's what this whole thread has been about outside my public PMs. oh i forgot, that case failed miserably so now ur sticking ur snout in the next best thing to start a fight with.

[Thecowgoooesmooo]

First thing first, Mr. Blackman, when I use the word "Blackie", I wasen't using this as a racialy related word towards you. I don't know if your an African American, and I really don't care to know. But If I offended you in any way, I am truly sorry. I am an African American as well.

Yes, that's the source of all of this, copied, duplicated, proliferated, and perpetuated all across the internet. It's all the same thing, like RK said.

How about this for research? Take that address, http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html, and delete everything after ".net" This will take you to www.hardylaw.net, where you will find out that David T. Hardy is an attorney in Arizona. Spend 2 minutes on Google, and you'll find out that he's an attorney for the NRA (which for some strange reason he doesn't include in his bio). Like I said several posts ago.

So what's your point Mr. Blackman? Do you discredit his information and facts just because he is apart of the NRA? Would you discredit his information if he was a republican? Would you discredit his information if he was a democrat? Even if David T. Hardy was a member of the Klu Klux Klan, that still would not make any of his articles "not truthful" or whatever you want to believe. I find it interesting that instead of replying with an arguement over the actual content presented in Hardy's articles and other's you instead tell me that he is an NRA attorney.... It's a classic example of "ignoring the facts".

If only it were that simple. Context is everything. Everything has a context. People are subjective, and if something is made by a person (especially a movie) it is by definition subjective.

I don't really understand where you are going with this? Are you telling me documentary's can not be objective? I think it is... Well, I thought the example, I gave in the earlier post was great, but Ill let you check out this, it might be a better example for you...

This is an essay, that I think would probly serve as a better example.

http://www.arts.cornell.edu/knight_institute/publications/Discoveries%20Fa1997/02.pdf

Im quoting from the last paragraph of the essay, I thought this was interesting.

of the camera to record reality is
both extensive and severely limited. We know only what the camera
has recorded: that those girls were jumping rope then, and that that
boy was playing with a crab there. To claim any more knowledge of
Senegalese culture would be false and subjective; the film attempts no
generalizations of the greater picture. But the validity of each recorded
instance is absolute and objective. "The best way to be neutral and
objective is to copy reality meticulously. Because reality is arranged
into an explanation of itself. Every single detail is to be recorded. . . .
Objectivity commented upon. It records." We come away from the film
with a collection of images and sounds, as if we have experienced
Senegal in a dream or in memory. The knowledge we have gained is
subtle and easily destroyed by the transformation into words. Reality
is delicate.

And then this....

in case u didn't notice, the main argument against this fool is that his opinion is misinformed and clearly STUPID. notice, u are the only one who is defending him. notice, u are using this latest anti-admin non-sensical idiot to fuel ur latest spontaneous rampage. notice, u even joked about it before when u had the chance to start crying.

stay out of this sig thing, jj, i wouldn't be surprised if u encouraged him to be an asshole. like u've done to so many idiots before. i don't blame u, i've come to the conclusion u are a severe schizophrenic. argue the michael moore case cos that's what this whole thread has been about outside my public PMs. oh i forgot, that case failed miserably so now ur sticking ur snout in the next best thing to start a fight with.

P, I think this is crazy that you have gone completely psycho over my original signature. This is evident, when you continue to send me PM's over and over. Just get over it man, its no big deal.

My original signature was simply this: Don't judge someone by their post count. Just look at P.

I don't think this signature was out of line in any way. And I guess its kinda ironic, that the person who makes the most noise about this is, well you.

Its getting old, stop using your admin status to repeatedly change my signature. Which I see has been done numerous times. (and cBrad)


Anyways, Im much more interested in this debate between anyone who is participating.


chris

[aclockworkjj]

he chose to ignore every PM i sent him

imagine that...i mean your PM's are usually so intelligent themselves.  

And no this has nothing to do with him and much as it has to do with you being a fuckin' asshole again.  Call me a schitzo all you like...but i am not the one crying cause someone said they didn't like me in their signature little boy.  And it all went too far..objectivity was lost and it started with your attack on him.  (here is where you try and play it off like a joke)  You changed his signature and then he called you on it....then you claim..."haha, it wasn't a secret" (kinda like how newtron wasn't a secret?)...seriously man, for someone so fuckin' confident and arrogant to where you know exactly what each and everyone is like sitting behind their screen..you sure fuckin' cry like a little girl when your little persona is questioned itself.  

Just don't be such an asshole to everyone other than the 8 people you find deemable, or at least don't cry when someone calls you on it.  I see you play the little name dropping game, in fact it's about all the content i see from you...other than the 1 actually great post a month you will make.  Even then, even though it's good shit...it's still all, "this is it, i get it, you don't."

I am not going to sit here and fight with you, but christ...how the fuck is your shady ass an admin still?  Which, like i reminded you...in your big huge "I am not gonna share mental space with JJ speech", you said you were gonna give up (i feel i have every right to say that)?

Am i crying? or am I simply pointing out the obvious about you, making you eat some words, maybe inaccuratly judging you ...all of which you have no problem doing to others.  Or you just say, well..."you don't matter so no one cares what you say."

ps. sorry for this, but this thread is already fuct.  Ever stop to think maybe it's everyone against the Moo Cow cause no one else wants to deal with the liberal onslaught?  Trust me, I know how this argument works...it turns into a bunch of people questioning one....that one doing nothing but trying to justify his opinion, and then instead of conversing and maybe getting an opinion back from his critics...he just gets each sentence he wrote, questioned and twisted.  he gets the "he's a ignorant moron, i am right he is clueless."  It's all just opinions.  Laugh a little bit.

[MacGuffin]

My original signature was simply this: Don't judge someone by their post count. Just look at P.

I don't think this signature was out of line in any way.

Why don't you admit to the other signatures you posted? It wasn't just that one. I saw three others. Four if you count the cbrad one.

[Thecowgoooesmooo]

Thecowgoooesmooo wrote:
My original signature was simply this: Don't judge someone by their post count. Just look at P.

I don't think this signature was out of line in any way.


Why don't you admit to the other signatures you posted? It wasn't just that one.

Your right, it wasen't just that one. But that was my original, and its been my original for a few months now I believe. The other ones were in retalition of every time he would abuse his admin status or another admin (I don't know who exactly), would change my signature to something that better suited them. To tell you the truth, I don't remember them all (ADHD moment), but Im sure you do Macguffin???

Also the cBRAD one, was obviously done by cBRAD, he put something like: I enjoy drinking piss___ A cBRAD Production

In retalition of him changing my signature and putting a harassing comment in there against me, I changed the sentence to.

I am abusing my admin status. ____ A cBRAD Production


chris

[MacGuffin]

To tell you the truth, I don't remember them all (ADHD moment), but Im sure you do Macguffin???

Yep. Word for word. But by not admitting to the other quotes, you make it sound like P had no reason to change your signatures as they increased in harassment; that the "abuse of admin power" had no basis.