Michael Moore and his bullshit (Bowling for Columbine)

[Thecowgoooesmooo]

Thecowgoooesmooo wrote:
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.

MacGuffin, its not like Im trying to hide anything. No reason to, im giving you all the info I can. It went something like this MacGuffin.

My original signature was.
Don't Judge someone by their post count. Just look at P.

From there, P immediately went crazy, and told me that he wants answers to why I "hate" him? Do I hate him? That signature was not hateful in any way.

He then changed my signature to something like. (And no exageration here)

if u fuk with me, yur gonna get it

From there, that initial abuse of admin power, it just started a snowball of constant signature retalitions exchanging from me to P. Then it ended with cBrad changing my signature, to explaining that I enjoy drinking piss, followed by a sentence that said "a cBRAD production". I then changed the signature to "I am abusing my admin status. a cBRAD production".

That's it, the whole deal. Not trying to hide a thing.


chris

[MacGuffin]

MacGuffin, its not like Im trying to hide anything.

No, just not being up front with all the details, and selecting what information to release.

From there, P immediately went crazy, and told me that he wants answers to why I "hate" him?

Which I saw you avoiding an answer to. And I wouldn't say "immediately" since you've had that signature a while and he even asked you about it before.

Do I hate him? That signature was not hateful in any way.

So, if you're not hiding anything, I ask you, why the need to single him out? What do you have against him (before all this, when it was the original signature)?

[Thecowgoooesmooo]

Thecowgoooesmooo wrote:
MacGuffin, its not like Im trying to hide anything.


No, just not being up front with all the details, and selecting what information to release.

Well, as I said before. Im not trying to hide anything.  Therefore, Im not trying to be SELECTIVE about what I "release"... Im not doing it purposely... Just to make that clear.

Thecowgoooesmooo wrote:
From there, P immediately went crazy, and told me that he wants answers to why I "hate" him?


Which I saw you avoiding an answer to. And I wouldn't say "immediately" since you've had that signature a while and he even asked you about it before.

What I meant by "immediately" crazy MacGuffin, was the following post in reply to mine. And then, the onslaught of unintelligent Private Messages he sent to me, over and over.

Thecowgoooesmooo wrote:
Do I hate him? That signature was not hateful in any way.


So, if you're not hiding anything, I ask you, why the need to single him out? What do you have against him (before all this, when it was the original signature)?

Well, Ive got nothing against P. I don't know why you guys assume this because, Ive never said, I hate him, or that I have anything against him. And about the signature, well, I think Im going to just leave that one up for interpretation. How bout that?

chris

[cine]

That was one shitty cop out.

[MacGuffin]

That was one shitty cop out.

The defense rests.

[Thecowgoooesmooo]

Cinephile wrote:
That was one shitty cop out.


The defense rests.

Well, i'd be interesting to see you elaborate on how this was a cop out... Seeing that I just explained in detail, the events that unfolded, and answered with only truth.

And also on a side note, Macguffin do you have anything to add to the actual discussion? Note the thread header and 1st post.


chris

[aclockworkjj]

gimme a fuckin break...you guys on jury duty?  move on on stop tryin' to save the fact of how this bullshit started.  

now...imagine what michael moore would look like gettin' blown by bruce vilanch.  



ehhhhh!!!!!!!  cute couple though.

[cine]

And about the signature, well, I think Im going to just leave that one up for interpretation. How bout that?

Explain how this is NOT a cop out to Mac's question.

[Thecowgoooesmooo]

Thecowgoooesmooo wrote:
And about the signature, well, I think Im going to just leave that one up for interpretation. How bout that?  

Explain how this is NOT a cop out to Mac's question.

Well Cinephile, If you insist on getting technical.

So, if you're not hiding anything, I ask you, why the need to single him out? What do you have against him (before all this, when it was the original signature)?

This was MacGuffins question/ or questions.

I answered with this.

Well, Ive got nothing against P. I don't know why you guys assume this because, Ive never said, I hate him, or that I have anything against him. And about the signature, well, I think Im going to just leave that one up for interpretation. How bout that?

Cinephile, MacGuffin didn't ask me a question about what the signature meant...

And about the signature, well, I think Im going to just leave that one up for interpretation. How bout that?  

If your telling me this is a cop out. Well it dosen't make sense because a cop out means: To avoid fulfilling a commitment or responsibility....

And sense he never asked me "What does the signature mean?". That means that my statement could not possibly be called a "cop out".

Your futile arguement is invalid... Case Dismissed...


anyways, cinephile, like i told macguffin, do you have anything to add to the long lost debate about michael moore?


chris

[xerxes]

this thread is pretty depressing...

i still can't understand why anyone could not understand that when someone chooses to show one thing as opposed to another it can no longer be completely objective.  if there is someone behind it, directing it, and making decision as to what goes in to it... that is subjectivity.

[Pubrick]

He then changed my signature to something like. (And no exageration here)

if u fuk with me, yur gonna get it

this never happened u fucking liar, all i ever said in ur signature was why weren't u replying to any of my PMs, if u had replied i was trying to avoid any furore which has since developed, and i guess u are happy with.

u shouldn't hav ignored my PMs which were completely reasonable, bar the last one.. when u could hav just said that u were kidding. it seemed to me and others that u were targetting me for no reason and i found that weak because i'd never heard of u before this. if u had said "i'm joking dude, i don't know u and u've never said anything to me, i just felt like insulting u for no reason", that would have been the end of it. but u didn't and ur still in denial about it.

yes ur sig did say just Don't judge sumone by the post counts blah blah, is that not an insult to u? isn't it saying, here's this dude who is worthless regardless of his post count. it's inaccurate on so many levels, u didn't need to use me as an example, and the fact that u did shows that u intended sum insult towards me.

[Jeremy Blackman]

So what's your point Mr. Blackman? Do you discredit his information and facts just because he is apart of the NRA?

Yes. I think it's reasonable to say that lawyers for the NRA have a tendency to manipulate things in the NRA's favor, especially if they're being paid to do so.

Are you telling me documentary's can not be objective?

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.

What is attempted and what is achieved are two different things. What this statement ignores is context, and anything with context and implications (especially a movie) can not be purely objective.

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

Then you don't get it.

ps. sorry for this

If you really were sorry, you would delete your post and move on.

[Raikus]

Just to give you all an outsider's view on this thread.

Cow's been kicking all your asses by displaying fact and responding to each point in a reasonable way. Everyone else seems to be "copping out" with posts attacking him and not his evidence while the others pat them on the back and say "good one."

At least, that's how it looks from here.

[aclockworkjj]

If you really were sorry, you would delete your post and move on.

true...I guess I was just sorry for singling out P...kinda too easy. Right, I coulda moved on, i apologize for that.  But yeah his sig changed about  4 times yesterday.  Seriously though, a sig?  if it makes people feel better...change all your sigs to rip me a new one.   Really i don't mind.

Jb...see what i mean though.  you critize and point out his lack of content, but yet really don't add anything else there.  

if he is so wrong, show or discuss why,  it's easy to question his arguement, but you guys are doing the same shit.  Personally i think it's clear that the Moo  Cow is a racist (you know that's where you were going), and he likes to shoot things, and he probably hates fat people too.  Really, how do you expect the guy to have a decent discussion when he has 6 people simply telling him, "You're a fuckin' idiot."  

But to add to the argument...what moore does with his films is a good thing i believe.  it allows people to question things.  but it should not stand as fact anymore so than what a NRA lawyer has to say.  that's why this arguement is a no win thing...it's just sad that there are that many damn people across the country that see this film and walk away thinking it's the way the world is.  Sorry, the truth of the world can not be made in the editing room.  he searches for truths that simply don't exist.  wait till his next film comes out about a woman hating, racist with some freaky looking dude in his anus.  shit is twisted, turned, and conclusions are drawn without actually taking the time to understand, but rather simply just judging.  It's too easy to question something...to accept it and realize you in fact won't change the world is whole nother ordeal in itself.

[godardian]

Just to give you all an outsider's view on this thread.

Cow's been kicking all your asses by displaying fact and responding to each point in a reasonable way. Everyone else seems to be "copping out" with posts attacking him and not his evidence while the others pat them on the back and say "good one."

That's sort of true, except for the reasonable part and the part about people not rebutting his "facts" with other "facts." It was revealing that JB and RK pointed out that many of those articles had the same very biased sources. So much for trashing Moore's supposed biases with supposed "objectivity."

Cowgoesmooooooo is not reasonable. He's obviously enjoying the fight, and would find some other issue to start one over if Michael Moore wasn't his target. Unless he's actually that hung up on Michael Moore, which would be part pathetic and part scary.

If it's really hypocrisy and lying that's getting you down, why not start rampaging against Bush/Cheney/Halliburton and their lies, which are so much more detrimental to all of us than anything incorrect Moore might have claimed, even if you could prove that? Michael Moore only has the power to annoy you if you don't like him- the others have real power.