Xixax Film Forum

I thought I would create a thread devoted to this, because it has been on my mind for quite some time. The fact that Moore blatantly lies and fools the viewer to be swayed by his viewpoint. This liberal, like most liberals, is a total fool. What's funny is that Moore trys to sell Bowling for Columbine as a documentary when it is clearly a MOCKUMENTARY!

Any opinions or thoughts on this debate?


chris
(and yes I do know, another thread has discussions about this, but I want this thread to be devoted to this arguement)

Quote from: ThecowgoooesmoooAny opinions or thoughts on this debate?

liberal hippi!!!  he cries, and cries...and MOCKUMENTARY is right.  I don't give a shit about him ever since the oscars.  politics has no place there...the fact he tried to bring it there,  ...i hate him.

School shootings rock, fuck Michael Moore.

i fully agree. violence should be celebrated, not analysed.

while we're at it, fuck the poor, i hate ppl who hav no money... they just make me sick.

And commercial fishermen, also. Get a real job.

Moore is 100% right. :(

But Bowling for Columbine is still manipulative shit. :(

Quote from: aclockworkjjhe cries, and cries

Should people just be quiet and accept the world the way it is?

Quote from: aclockworkjjdon't give a shit about him ever since the oscars.  politics has no place there

Indeed, it was sinful of him to stain that sacred institution.... with... "opinions."

Quote from: aclockworkjjI don't give a shit about him ever since the oscars.  politics has no place there...the fact he tried to bring it there,  ...i hate him.

me too, specially because the oscars are such a special occasion, and so sacred, and because the oscars ARE NOT just a tv show made by hollywood to congratulate themselves and their big movies and manipulate everything to give the awards to people with the biggest commercial success...he should be crucified

P and Slobh are right, criticizing Michael Moore means you endorse murder and hate poor people.


I agree with you cowgoesmoo

Criticizing Michael Moore (or anyone else) for "disrupting" the Oscars is like your mean little boss coming into the break room at your office as you're heatedly discussing the editorial page with a co-worker and saying, "That conversation has no place here! Stop being disruptive!" It's not Moore's fault there's no camera in your break room. If you have a problem with what you feel are wrong opinions being broadcast around, then make your own documentary/write your own book/create your own TV show. That's how Michael Moore felt, and that's what he did. I'm not a huge fan of his by any means, but I do feel he's unfairly singled out because of the stripe of his opinions, not just because of the way he expresses them.

So much fucking sarcasm!!! How come I'm not in on this?!?!?  Ok fine...

Michael Moore sucks... how dare he confront that old ape of a man about his love of guns!!!

:-D

Quote from: TheVoiceOfNickSo much fucking sarcasm!!! How come I'm not in on this?!?!?  Ok fine...

Michael Moore sucks... how dare he confront that old ape of a man about his love of guns!!!

:-D

That damn dirty ape.

Do you have guns at home?
Or at least plan to?
I think there is no point in that. What do you think?

QuoteMoore is 100% right.

Not exactly... He's more like a hyprocritical liar...

http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel040403.asp

chris

Quote from: Thecowgoooesmooo

QuoteMoore is 100% right.

Not exactly... He's more like a hyprocritical liar...

http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel040403.asp

I find him to be not quite either.

I'm bizarrely apolitical, yet I see the liberals as often having the better arguments, but I still defend conservatives. So fuck that fat fuck. That scene at Lockheed...so stupid.

Edit: I forgot, I really get sick of all the arguing that goes on around Michael Moore and Bowling for Columbine, as with most political issues, the debate goes nowhere, and no one changes their mind.

..personally , i cannn't stand MM...but BFFC is a brilliant movie....

mooore wrote an clever script annd directed it well....i like his choice of actors.. which range from hestoon as portrayed as the leader of the NRA from down to lesser knnow actors like the bannk teller in the begining of the film.....

why wasnnn't heston nominated for an award ffor best supporting actor...

annd why wasnnn't the script that MM crafted nnnonnimated ffor original screennnplay....

i dont like how he thinks he is above everyone.  Its like hes not just showing the facts, he is telling how "Right" he is

Quote from: Bankyi dont like how he thinks he is above everyone.  Its like hes not just showing the facts, he is telling how "Right" he is

Okay, I'll give you that, and I do hate the fact that he lied in BFC, but in the end you have to give it to him for a great film like Neon said.  And he's got a fucking point.

Quote from: Thecowgoooesmooo

Not exactly... He's more like a hyprocritical liar...

http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel040403.asp

chris

i almost stopped reading after this "brilliant" paragraph:

Moore asks: "Do you think it's a little bit dangerous handing out guns at a bank?" The banker's answer isn't shown.

So the audience is left with a smug sense of the pro-gun bank's folly. Yet just a moment's reflection shows that there is not the slightest danger. To take possession of the gun, the depositor must give the bank thousands of dollars (an unlikely way to start a robbery). He must then produce photo identification (thus making it all but certain that the robber would be identified and caught), spend at least a half hour at the bank (thereby allowing many people to see and identify him), and undergo an FBI background check (which would reveal criminal convictions disqualifying most of the people inclined to bank robbery). A would-be robber could far more easily buy a handgun for a few hundred dollars on the black market, with no identification required.

and then i read this:

The vast majority of hunters are also very safety-conscious. In 2000, for example, there were 91 fatal hunting accidents in all of North America, within a population of over 16 million hunters.

and i really had to stop.  i must say, the author argues some very stupid points.

looks like we got ourselves couple of chris matthews on the board.

Quote from: petelooks like we got ourselves couple of chris matthews on the board.

What do you mean by this?  From the little of Hardball that I've seen, he seems like he's always challenging everyone (both sides) and I'm not really sure where he leans.

Did you mean that some people have tomato-shaped heads?

chris matthews is the man!!

Quote from: SoNowThenchris matthews is the man!!

That's cuz he got a sex change...

what's wrong with michael moore?  why can't simple folk create propoganda?  sure, it's bullshit on all sides, but let the man do his thing, if it's for a good cause.  you know, i love to see people shot and killed and murder and so on, it's all fun stuff, hell, it's the american dream to murder somoene.  but the man is just trying to make a little film.  let it go.

Quote from: classical gaswhat's wrong with michael moore?  why can't simple folk create propoganda?

exactly, everybody's lying so let the best liar win.

and in this case the best liar happens to be right.

Quote from: P

Quote from: classical gaswhat's wrong with michael moore?  why can't simple folk create propoganda?

exactly, everybody's lying so let the best liar win.

and in this case the best liar happens to be right.

I really, really wish people wouldn't defend that.  If he were so secure, he wouldn't have to lie.  But like I said, he's right

Quote from: Pbe right.

Quote from: Slobhhe's right

liars.

Perhaps people should go do research on documentaries.  They are not representations of reality.  They are carefully constructed through editing to show what the author wants to show.

Moore constructed Bowling for Columbine very impressively (I believe he won a best screenplay award for it from the Independent Film Awards).

QuotePerhaps people should go do research on documentaries. They are not representations of reality. They are carefully constructed through editing to show what the author wants to show.

doc·u·men·ta·ry    
adj.

1. Consisting of, concerning, or based on documents.

2. Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.


I did the research Shaftr.. Notice anything weird?



chris

once again i ask, what the fuck is ur problem, moo? i'm removing that shit from ur sig cos i dont' even know who the fuck u are around here and i don't think we hav any rivalry like JJ and i do.. sumone like him i would accept that kinda sig from.

what the fuck is ur problem?

Quoteonce again i ask, what the fuck is ur problem, moo? i'm removing that shit from ur sig cos i dont' even know who the fuck u are around here and i don't think we hav any rivalry like JJ and i do.. sumone like him i would accept that kinda sig from.

what the fuck is ur problem?

Hahah the culprit reveals himself. This is kinda off topic man, but you need to calm down, nobodys out to assasinate you.


chris

yeah i wasn't planning on making any secret about it. big revelation.

i still don't understand what u hav against me. and it is on topic cos i wanna know what the fuck ur problem is. since when hav i given a shit about my post count.

u picked the wrong person to start shit with mang.

Quoteonce again i ask, what the fuck is ur problem, moo? i'm removing that shit from ur sig cos i dont' even know who the fuck u are around here and i don't think we hav any rivalry like JJ and i do.. sumone like him i would accept that kinda sig from. what misguided shit made u hate me?

what the fuck is ur problem?

Why did you just post twice? But this time by adding the last sentence...

what misguided shit made u hate me?

I'll hit you back up with a question.

What's the highest grade level you have passed?


chris

Quotei still don't understand what u hav against me. and it is on topic cos i wanna know what the fuck ur problem is. since when hav i given a shit about my post count.

u picked the wrong person to start shit with mang.

I've messed with the wrong person to mess with mang? Damn... You must be much more intelligence then me, seeing that you can somehow use short cuts such as: cos, ur, hav, ect.

Also, you are much to intelligent for me to go against, because you have created a word called: mang

I really have picked the wrong person to mess with here.


chris

yeah the weird thing is how exactly does one present the facts objectively in a film?  you can't that's how.
if by research you mean "looking a word up in a dictionary" then all the professional researchers in this country are getting paid to do shit.

Quote from: Thecowgoooesmooo

QuotePerhaps people should go do research on documentaries. They are not representations of reality. They are carefully constructed through editing to show what the author wants to show.

doc·u·men·ta·ry    
adj.

1. Consisting of, concerning, or based on documents.

2. Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.


I did the research Shaftr.. Notice anything weird?



chris

Quote from: ThecowgoooesmoooWhy did you just post twice? But this time by adding the last sentence...

what misguided shit made u hate me?

I'll hit you back up with a question.

What's the highest grade level you have passed?


chris

i posted twice cos i was editing. it has been explained million times before which u obviously didn't notice cos u disappear from the place months at a time.

let's take this to PM.

i'm sure other ppl here hav other reasons to hate u.

Quote from: Thecowgoooesmooo

QuotePerhaps people should go do research on documentaries. They are not representations of reality. They are carefully constructed through editing to show what the author wants to show.

doc·u·men·ta·ry    
adj.

1. Consisting of, concerning, or based on documents.

2. Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.


I did the research Shaftr.. Notice anything weird?



chris

research
Function: Verb
Date: 1593
1:  to search or investigate exhaustively

Quoteresearch
Function: Verb
Date: 1593
1: to search or investigate exhaustively

Shaftr, the point Im making is this, you posted...

QuotePerhaps people should go do research on documentaries. They are not representations of reality.

Do you really think documentary's are not representations of reality? I want to see if you contradict yourself.


chris

I'm all for differing opinions...and I defenitely am inspired by articles and such, but I haven't really heard too much individuality in your arguments.  Do you care to add anything?

QuoteI'm all for differing opinions...and I defenitely am inspired by articles and such, but I haven't really heard too much individuality in your arguments. Do you care to add anything?

Well, I'm not going to splash uneeded individuality throughout my posts on this debate because I am just defending one side, plus its uneeded unless it aids in the debate. Im simply taking the side against Moore. Similiar to, Conservatives VS Democrats. Each side supports different views, but they are generally the same on each side.


chris

so this thread is started by some insecure and admittingly generic young republican to make him feel better about the shit he reads in the national review aka the new republic for grownups.  I say arguing with this kid is useless because he's just going to quote more sources to fuel his own insecurity.  It's all just a phase anyways, he's gonna change as soon as he makes friends with a black person, that is, IF he ever gets past the "they're just pitying themselves for something that ended 200 years ago" type of thinking.

Quote from: Thecowgoooesmooochris

fine.

two simple questions..

were u joking to begin with, if so fine, even tho i hav never talked to u before this stupid crap except to ask u the same thing a couple of months ago.

if u weren't joking, did u think i would gladly welcome some unjustified insult from sumone i've never heard of or spoken to before?

and judging from ppl's responses, it seems u are the idiot here on more instances than just ur unfounded sigs.

Quote from: Thecowgoooesmooo

Quoteresearch
Function: Verb
Date: 1593
1: to search or investigate exhaustively

Shaftr, the point Im making is this, you posted...

QuotePerhaps people should go do research on documentaries. They are not representations of reality.

Do you really think documentary's are not representations of reality? I want to see if you contradict yourself.


chris

Documentaries propose to represent factual information, but that isn't always the case.  They do give us acccess to reality in a more objective way but they are still carefully constructed through editing.  The Kushelov effect is just as important in documentaries as in film.

Bowling for Columbine is an example of a non-narrative rhetorical film.  It attempts to persuade the viewers.  This is often accomplished through editing.

Quote from: Pi don't think we hav any rivalry like JJ and i do..

that's it...i am soooo gonna rip off yer little Pecker!!!!

i kid, i kid.  hehe.


ps. i have never even seen bowling for columbine.  never will.  damn those liberals and their funny backwards ways...grrr.  :wink:

Quoteso this thread is started by some insecure and admittingly generic young republican to make him feel better about the shit he reads in the national review aka the new republic for grownups. I say arguing with this kid is useless because he's just going to quote more sources to fuel his own insecurity.

Well Pete, Great post, but let me point out a couple of errors in there, and then I will go on to point out the errors in your earlier posts, to help support the fact that you are not very bright.

Quoteso this thread is started by some insecure and

Insecure? Nope. Are you P's friend?

Quoteadmittingly generic young republican to make him feel better about the shit he reads in the national review aka the new republic for grownups.

Well, Ive never read the national review, or the new republic. Jesus christ man... Was your abusive father a republican or somthin?

QuoteI say arguing with this kid is useless because he's just going to quote more sources to fuel his own insecurity.

Argueing with me is not useless, its actually pretty easy. Im just a normal human being. I quote sources to help back up my arguement. You must have learned in High School that quoting sources was VERY VERY bad!! And once again, not insecure. Are you sure your not P's friend?

QuoteIt's all just a phase anyways, he's gonna change as soon as he makes friends with a black person, that is, IF he ever gets past the "they're just pitying themselves for something that ended 200 years ago" type of thinking.

Once again, your only defense is a weak attempt at stereotyping someone over the internet who you don't know. Entertain me some more!

Now that is done. I'll look at your earlier post. I'll educate you Pete. Once your done reading these next few sentences Pete, you will no longer have to attend the Sylvan Learning Center.

Quoteyeah the weird thing is how exactly does one present the facts objectively in a film? you can't that's how.
if by research you mean "looking a word up in a dictionary" then all the professional researchers in this country are getting paid to do shit.

Now that is done. I'll look at your earlier post. I'll educate you Pete. Once your done reading these next few sentences Pete, you will no longer have to attend the Sylvan Learning Center.

Quoteyeah the weird thing is how exactly does one present the facts objectively in a film? you can't that's how.

Well actually Pete, you can present the facts objectively in a film. Objectively presenting a documentary for example, would be presenting a documentary that is fair and uninfluenced by emotions. It's done all the time, Pete why don't you ride your Huffy bike to your local video store and pick up the documentary titled, "Goin to Chicago". I just saw it, its a great example of a documentary presenting information that is uninfluenced by emotions or personal interests unlike Moore.

Quoteif by research you mean "looking a word up in a dictionary" then all the professional researchers in this country are getting paid to do shit.

Well Pete, you got me here, this statement is so stupid, that I can't even possibly understand it. Thank you for making me dumber.



chris

hey! some individuality :-D

you're right though...it's unnecessary....

QuoteWell, Ive never read the national review

Quotehttp://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel040403.asp

chris

Quote from: peteso this thread is started by some insecure and admittingly generic young republican to make him feel better about the shit he reads in the national review aka the new republic for grownups.  I say arguing with this kid is useless because he's just going to quote more sources to fuel his own insecurity.  It's all just a phase anyways, he's gonna change as soon as he makes friends with a black person, that is, IF he ever gets past the "they're just pitying themselves for something that ended 200 years ago" type of thinking.

:roll:  I believe it was Churchill who said "if you're young, and not a liberal, you're heartless. If you're old, and not a conservative, you're brainless". Smart man, that fellow.

Anyway, just because I don't like/trust Michael Moore doesn't mean I discount his movie because it isn't "pure facts". It's ridiculous to believe that any documentary would be anything but subjective (as most have pointed out), simply because editing is involved. What I find a little odd is that some seem to want to take BFC as the gospel truth and the key to stopping violence. I find that attitude to be a somewhat "young" and "insecure" way of approaching it.

Quote from: Thecowgoooesmooohttp://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel040403.asp

How you can trust something from the National Review is beyond me. Most of this "information" was concocted by an NRA lawyer... but we've covered that before.

Quote from: Thecowgoooesmooo2. Presenting facts objectivey

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

Also, how much objectivity lies in your method of personally attacking people when your argument is failing?

And just as a warning, when it goes beyond that and becomes harassment, it's not something that's tolerated here.

Quote from: aclockworkjji have never even seen bowling for columbine.  never will.  damn those liberals and their funny backwards ways...grrr.  :wink:

as-sump-tion

1. Something taken for granted or accepted as true without proof.

2. Presumption; arrogance.

Quote from: Thecowgoooesmooo
I've messed with the wrong person to mess with mang? Damn... You must be much more intelligence then me, seeing that you can somehow use short cuts such as: cos, ur, hav, ect.

Also, you are much to intelligent for me to go against, because you have created a word called: mang

I really have picked the wrong person to mess with here.


chris

urghhh... ur back.

if i had to guess i'd say u lived in midtown atlanta, yes? what, did backstreet close and u have nothing else to do on friday nights but to spit out nonsense about good movies and ppl u don't know? can't u just go back to ur usually one meaningless post a month routine? i liked that a lot better.

Quote from: SoNowThen

Quote from: peteso this thread is started by some insecure and admittingly generic young republican to make him feel better about the shit he reads in the national review aka the new republic for grownups.  I say arguing with this kid is useless because he's just going to quote more sources to fuel his own insecurity.  It's all just a phase anyways, he's gonna change as soon as he makes friends with a black person, that is, IF he ever gets past the "they're just pitying themselves for something that ended 200 years ago" type of thinking.

:roll:  I believe it was Churchill who said "if you're young, and not a liberal, you're heartless. If you're old, and not a conservative, you're brainless". Smart man, that fellow.

Anyway, just because I don't like/trust Michael Moore doesn't mean I discount his movie because it isn't "pure facts". It's ridiculous to believe that any documentary would be anything but subjective (as most have pointed out), simply because editing is involved. What I find a little odd is that some seem to want to take BFC as the gospel truth and the key to stopping violence. I find that attitude to be a somewhat "young" and "insecure" way of approaching it.

That seems reasonable enough.

I don't share your admiration of Winston Churchill, though. "Smart," maybe, but... well:

""I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place." - Winston Churchill, 1937, on the Palestenians.

Churchill may have been a bit more reserved than the Nazis, but shared to a shocking degree their views on race supremacy. Just because he was the "friend" of the US or the wartime enemy of Hitler doesn't mean he wasn't a bigot imperialist.

HA!  This is all very amusing... some kid that thinks he's "intelligent" reads some bullshit everyone read a year ago and gets a wild hair up his ass thinking he's just discovered who really killed Kennedy... funny shit... really.

Great quote, Godardian. It inspires me to learn more about [the very quotable] Churchill.

And yes... I have actually been told that young/old quote before. Here's proof (http://www.npr.org/about/people/bios/dschorr.html) that it's not true.

whoa whoa whoa Chris, easy on the insecurity there buddy, you're gonna hurt yourself.

Quote from: Thecowgoooesmooo

my name is chris and I'm insecure as shit, oh yeah, I also read

chris

sonowthen- I'm not even a fan of bowling for columbine, and I'm not here to defend Michael Moore really, just unhappy when someone decides to go on a self-righteous rant, picking on an easy target and attempting to make himself feel better by talking down to the rest.

Quote from: ©brad
if i had to guess i'd say u lived in midtown atlanta, yes? what, did backstreet close and u have nothing else to do on friday nights but to spit out nonsense about good movies and ppl u don't know?

Hehe...at least I get this joke/reference!

Quote from: ©brad
if i had to guess i'd say u lived in midtown atlanta, yes? what, did backstreet close and u have nothing else to do on friday nights but to spit out nonsense about good movies and ppl u don't know?

Yeah, the backstreets have been closed for a while, thus he was born.

QuoteHow you can trust something from the National Review is beyond me. Most of this "information" was concocted by an NRA lawyer... but we've covered that before.

Ok Jeremy Blackman, do you ignore the facts for fun? If you don't believe this guy from the National Review.Check out these. Try finding out the facts, before making skeptical statements that hold no truth. Check out these.

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

http://www.bowlingfortruth.com

http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20021119.html

http://www.geocities.com/evil_spoon/articles/bowlingforlockheed.htm

http://www.thehoya.com/news/033100/news3.htm

http://web.archive.org/web/20001003020449/http://www.nrahq.org/administration/publications/tag/article2.shtml

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

http://www.andrewsullivan.com/main_article.php?artnum=20021208

http://www.opinionjournal.com/forms/printThis.html?id=110003233

http://www.wnyc.org/onthemedia/transcripts/transcripts_120602_more.html

http://dvd.ign.com/articles/430/430335p1.html?fromint=1

http://www.whatever-dude.com/posts/327.shtml

http://www.nd.edu/~observer/04032003/Viewpoint/0.html


This is just a few of the research sites on this Blackie. But you know, they are probly all wrong.  And probly must of this was just concocted by a clever NRA lawyer and maybe Heston's master mind midget sidekick.

QuoteGive 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).

QuoteAnd just as a warning, when it goes beyond that and becomes harassment, it's not something that's tolerated here.

What are you talking about? Harrassment? If you call this harrassment.

My signature was-- "Don't judge someone by their post count. Just look at P.

Now if any of you think this is harassment, buy some Zoloft. And considering the number of Private Messages from P...

And I quote from one of the many PM's this cool guy has sent me..

Quotei'm gonna hav to go to that thread and start talking there.

cos u seriously are pissing me off.

It looks like somebodys going to be getting a prescription soon.

Quoteurghhh... ur back.

if i had to guess i'd say u lived in midtown atlanta, yes? what, did backstreet close and u have nothing else to do on friday nights but to spit out nonsense about good movies and ppl u don't know? can't u just go back to ur usually one meaningless post a month routine? i liked that a lot better.

cBrad I think I remember getting in an intense matrix arguement with you, awhile back. That's sad, you still have such hard feelings for me. Or maybe its not that. Terrible stereotype, but nice try. Also this may sound extreme, but I think you should stop posting on here, and instead, pleasure yourself to Keanue Reeves.

Quotewhoa whoa whoa Chris, easy on the insecurity there buddy, you're gonna hurt yourself.

Pete argueing with you, is like sniffing glue. I think you can vouch for that.


chris

personally, I'd like you to prove that you never have read the national review as you said earlier.  i call in blackman to kick your ass here.

the whatever-dude.com article name calls more than bill o'reilly

may i please remind everyone that if you are going to get into a debate regarding personal opinons, try to voice them without assumptions as well as/and or threats.  



Btw...i read somewhere that m. moore and bruce vilanch were caught sucking off charlton hestin...just the facts jack.

haha... and he goes and quotes a hundred people with the same information.

You should also get a clue about objectivity.  It IS not possible to make a truly objective documentary unless you just set up completely random cameras EVERYWHERE and didn't edit anything... and then it would just be boring.

anyway, don't come here just to be a shit... seriously

Quote from: Thecowgoooesmooo[

QuoteGive 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)

Quote from: Thecowgoooesmooohttp://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.

Quote from: ThecowgoooesmoooNow, 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.

Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanOr, 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!!!!!  :twisted:

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!!!!!!

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...

Quote from: Pedro the Wombatand 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.

you should vote.

this is depressing.

a little bit.

well....after looking over this thread, which at least had a few constructivly conversing.  It changed right here (http://xixax.com/viewtopic.php?t=4712&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=30).  What is depressing, is how something as fuckin' stupid as a signature (from "the idiot here") can turn into an onslaught.

Quote from: aclockworkjjwell....after looking over this thread, which at least had a few constructivly conversing.  It changed right here (http://xixax.com/viewtopic.php?t=4712&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=30).  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.

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. :)

QuoteYes, 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".

QuoteIf 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.

Quoteof 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....

Quotein 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

Quote from: Phe 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.

Quote from: ThecowgoooesmoooMy 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.

QuoteThecowgoooesmooo 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

Quote from: ThecowgoooesmoooTo 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.

QuoteThecowgoooesmooo 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

Quote from: ThecowgoooesmoooMacGuffin, its not like Im trying to hide anything.

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

Quote from: ThecowgoooesmoooFrom 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.

Quote from: ThecowgoooesmoooDo 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)?

QuoteThecowgoooesmooo 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.

QuoteThecowgoooesmooo 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.

QuoteThecowgoooesmooo 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

That was one shitty cop out.

Quote from: CinephileThat was one shitty cop out.

The defense rests.

QuoteCinephile 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

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.  
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.usatoday.com%2Flife%2F_photos%2F2003%2F03-13-moore-inside.jpg&hash=2705d49ed8d4e701ed91f2bc12f564803c12c12d)(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bizcotti.com%2Fedition_28%2Fjpg-bin%2Fbruce_vilanch.jpg&hash=c5f6773001ab45b1f9e3edd3c50ad6c4de41b535)


ehhhhh!!!!!!!  cute couple though.

Quote from: ThecowgoooesmoooAnd 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.

QuoteThecowgoooesmooo 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.

QuoteSo, 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.

QuoteWell, 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...

QuoteAnd 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

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.

Quote from: ThecowgoooesmoooHe 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.

Quote from: ThecowgoooesmoooSo 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.

Quote from: ThecowgoooesmoooAre you telling me documentary's can not be objective?

Quotethat 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.

Quote from: ThecowgoooesmoooI don't think this signature was out of line in any way.

Then you don't get it.

Quote from: aclockworkjjps. sorry for this

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

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.

Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanIf 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.

Quote from: RaikusJust 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.

Quote from: aclockworkjjyou 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.

He's trying to invalidate "Bowling for Columbine." It only makes sense that if I invalidate his invalidations, the argument is done. Do you want me to restate the movie? Or perhaps you should actually see the movie so you can tell if I've done so.

Quote from: aclockworkjjPersonally 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.

I never said that or implied it... just that his use of personal attacks is the wrong way to use this board, let alone try to conduct a reasonable debate. I don't see how "Blackie" would have any racial meaning anyway, since he's African-American and I'm not.

Quote from: aclockworkjjReally, how do you expect the guy to have a decent discussion when he has 6 people simply telling him, "You're a fuckin' idiot."

How does he expect to have a decent discussion when he has to concoct condescending nicknames to support his argument? What, you think we tainted his pristine thread or something by calling him on it?

Quote from: godardian

Quote from: RaikusJust 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."

Actually the argument here is a biased source vs. a biased source. If everyone can't agree that Moore was biased when he started filming Bowling with preconceived notions then they are being naive. A Documentarian will submit a thesis as to what they think the documentary will show before they begin. They then shoot it and see what the result is. In my opinion, that's not what happened here. So if yours and JB's and RK's argument is that you can't believe the evidence provided by a NRA lawyer, then your argument must adversely mean you can't believe evidence provided by Moore. But, as logically failing as it seems, that's not the case.

QuoteCowgoesmooooooo 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.

From what I've seen Cow isn't fighting, he's debating. There's a large difference. However, everyone else seems to be fighting, not debating. That's one of the many problems about this site. People don't know how to debate by point/counter-point and instead counter with insults against the individual. Cow has been the strictest adherer to debate in this thread so that would also make him reasonable.

QuoteIf 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.

True, but that's another subject and has nothing to do with this thread. Cow was talking about Moore. It seems another argument is only brought up when the previous one is lost. Debate the Moore topic. If you'd like to talk about Bush/Cheney/Halliburton I'd propose starting a topic on them.

Quote from: RaikusJust 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.

from here it looks like u just patted cow on the back.

Quote from: P

Quote from: RaikusJust 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.

from here it looks like u just patted cow on the back.

I should hope so. That was my intention.

good one.

Quote from: Raikus
Actually the argument here is a biased source vs. a biased source. If everyone can't agree that Moore was biased when he started filming Bowling with preconceived notions then they are being naive.

I think everyone knows that, actually. All arguments are a biased source vs. a biased source, and no documentary could ever be completely objective. Cowgoesmoooooo didn't exactly come up with trenchant, ass-kicking arguments, though, which is what you wrongly claimed; his arguments and sources are as biased and full of holes, if not more so, than anyone else's. His triumphant stance of "objectivity" and revelation were sheeer b.s.

You're also wrong that he's just reasonably "debating." His tone is vituperative and spiteful. It's painfully clear that he's picking a fight. Q.E.D.

Quote from: Jeremy Blackmancalling him on it?

maybe you ment disagree?

Quote from: RaikusFrom what I've seen Cow isn't fighting, he's debating. There's a large difference. However, everyone else seems to be fighting, not debating. That's one of the many problems about this site. People don't know how to debate by point/counter-point and instead counter with insults against the individual. Cow has been the strictest adherer to debate in this thread so that would also make him reasonable.

Raikus, I give you his strict adherence. You don't find these few sample quotes as insults?

Quote from: ThecowgoooesmoooWell Pete, you got me here, this statement is so stupid, that I can't even possibly understand it. Thank you for making me dumber.

Quote from: ThecowgoooesmoooJesus christ man... Was your abusive father a republican or somthin?

Quote from: ThecowgoooesmoooI'll educate you Pete. Once your done reading these next few sentences Pete, you will no longer have to attend the Sylvan Learning Center.

haha...jeez, he is talking shit.  Seems as if he recieved some too.  Holy crap...sensative, sensative.  

Quote from: Pi'm sure other ppl here hav other reasons to hate u.

Quote from: petethis thread is started by some insecure and admittingly generic young republican to make him feel better about the shit he reads in the national review aka the new republic for grownups.

Quote from: ©bradcan't u just go back to ur usually one meaningless post a month routine? i liked that a lot better.

i mean...if we wanna play the quote game.

Well, admittedly I was championing his cause a bit to heartily, but those quotes you posted were in response to someone berating him previously. That's not an excuse, mind you, but Cow's classification of his arguments have far exceeded those opposing him.

And while I agree with some of the things Godardian said, Cow still seems to be the one keeping a semblance of debate going, while others are actually trying to fight.

Basically this whole debate is a seesaw of opinions. Both weighing nearly nothing because neither source can be validated, or, more importantly for both sides, neither side feels the need to accept any type of validation coming from the other. What I saw when I started browsing this thread days ago was a playground argument, with both sides already closed minded and with the same biased preconceived ideas, but with all the kids backing the side that seemed to be putting forth the least debate. So my "ass kicking" comment may have been a bit generalized, but I still stand by what I said regarding Cow's intention of "debate" opposed to the others intention of "fighting."

QuoteThecowgoooesmooo wrote:
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.

Hey Blackman, I just don't understand you man. Facts are facts. The only thing you have told me is that they may have the tendency to manipulate things in the NRA's favor. Your just accusing, and so far, you have not brought one fact into this arguement.

There has been over 300 independent researchers who have found faults with Moore, and its not a conspiracy contrived largely from the NRA. It's fact. Seriously, It's interesting to see you ignore the facts and accuse instead of bringing "actually factual evidence" from say, the NRA stretching the truth or lieing about Moore's film.


chris

The whole point here was this:

CGMoo came here screaming and yelling and wanting a fight, saying what had been discussed many times over in other threads.
He even said that he didn't want to go to the other threads.  This tells me he either wants this to be about him or really wants to fight.

Some of us point out that we've already discussed this and that Moore is not the first one to be slightly manipulative with his doc and that it's actually IMPOSSIBLE to be truly objective while making a documentary (though I'll admit Moore went a little further than most do).

If you want us to go fact by fact, we can... I believe we already have... here's a sample:

-The websites that are all the same say: "Those guys dropped out of thier Bowling Class, Michael Moore's a liar!"

-we say "who fucking cares if they dropped out of thier bowling class... it was reported that they went bowling before the shooting, that's all... it's part of his point."

-The websites that are all the same say: "They didn't let that lady at the bank answer Michael Moore's question.  Michael Moore is a liar!"

-we say "you obviously don't get it.  His point is that a promotion where you get a free gun at a bank sends the wrong message to people.  We're not stupid enough to think that the bank wouldn't do any kind of background check or check ID.  That doesn't need to be shown"

anyway... the point is that we've been through all of this... he just wants a fight.

Quote from: aclockworkjjmaybe you ment disagree?

If only he could just disagree.

Quote from: ThecowgoooesmoooHey Blackman, I just don't understand you man. Facts are facts. The only thing you have told me is that they may have the tendency to manipulate things in the NRA's favor. Your just accusing, and so far, you have not brought one fact into this arguement.

I'll try to say this again. Bowling for Columbine has facts in it. The NRA lawyer disputed those facts. I'm saying I don't trust the NRA lawyer... I'm not "simply ignoring the facts" by being skeptical of the NRA lawyer. Many of the things he complains about in BFC are very minor manipulations in cinematic technique and context, not flat-out lies... like RK just said. And we have gone over all of this before.

Also, Michael Moore has responded to all of this point by point on his website. You should check that out.

Quote from: ThecowgoooesmoooThere has been over 300 independent researchers who have found faults with Moore

By independent researchers you mean people who copied the NRA lawyer's webpage?

Of course people find faults with Moore. He's outspoken and aggressive, and he's made a lot of enemies.

Quote from: ThecowgoooesmoooThere has been over 300 independent researchers who have found faults with Moore

oh who cares? it means nothing. i bet they're 300 independent reaserches who could find a ton of faults in the textbook for my history 4000 class: Staging Growth: Modernization, Development, and the Global Cold War.

oliver stone has shared many of the same criticisms that moore has. what pisses me off is that ppl don't even care to recognize that these two men are filmmakers, and they are working in a medium that is not conducive to presenting every single solitary detail. steven ambrose can write a 500-paged book w/ an exorbitant amount of 'stuff.' stone and moore don't have that luxury. they have a 2 hour window in which they must convey what a historian can easily do in several hundred pages. so of course there is going to be composite characters and some dramatic licensing, but the truth is there in a dramatic form.

i guess my big beef is w/ ppl always assuming that history movies or documentaries are 'phony,' and the real 'truth' is in the text. history as a whole, be it in a film or in a book, is conjecture.

Quote from: ©bradsteven ambrose can write a 500-paged book w/ an exorbitant amount of 'stuff.' stone and moore don't have that luxury. they have a 2 hour window in which they must convey what a historian can easily do in several hundred pages. so of course there is going to be composite characters and some dramatic licensing, but the truth is there in a dramatic form.

Exactly, exactly, exactly. End of thread.

Read Michael Moore's books. They're stuffed with facts, far more than his movies and TV shows.

Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanEnd of thread.

bringing up some college textbook doesn't mean the end of any means.  Sorry...

Edit...sorry or steven ambrose...this topic is so hard to be purely objective on, is all i am saying.

Quote from: aclockworkjjbringing up some college textbook doesn't mean the end of any means.  Sorry...

Umm... what?

Quote from: aclockworkjj

Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanEnd of thread.

bringing up some college textbook doesn't mean the end of any means.  Sorry...

try reading the whole post before you shit on it. Sorry...

it's so funny how one of the big complaints is that we don't get to see the bank lady answer the question and here you are flat-out ignoring most of bradford's post.

and whenever someone says "well i'll just leave it up to your interpretation," they aren't resolving anything themselves. so by the definition cow presented, it's a cop out.

Quote from: picolasit's so funny how one of the big complaints is that we don't get to see the bank lady answer the question

Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanUmm... what?

Quote from: Raikus

Quote from: picolasit's so funny how one of the big complaints is that we don't get to see the bank lady answer the question

Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanUmm... what?

Gosh darn it Raikus... read the fucking thread.

He's referring to the ridiculous complaint I brought up of people crying about Michael Moore didn't let the lady at the bank that hands out guns answer the question "don't you think it's dangerous to give out guns at a bank?".

You'll have to forgive me. I'm at work and I completely missed the context there. I won't even comment on the sentence structure.

It's also important to note that he had an interview after that with a "bank lady" where she answered questions and it was a reasonable little conversation. Talk about context.

Quote from: picolastry reading the whole post before you shit on it. Sorry...

why?  I see "end of thread" and it reads, "this is right, we win" again.  It's not about winning or losing.  It's like me going:

"Only a liberal would hug a tree and kill a fetus"

End of thread!!

Oh come on. It was obviously hyperbole. If the thread was really ended, it would be locked.

Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanIt was obviously hyperbole. If the thread was really ended, it would be locked.

k..my bad.  

Now. To stem this out a bit:  
"...He [President Clinton] boasts about 186,000 people denied
firearms under the Brady Law rules. The Brady Law has been in
force for three years. In that time, they have prosecuted seven
people and put three of them in prison. You know, the President
has entertained more felons than that at fundraising coffees in
the White House, for Pete's sake..." -CHARLTON HESTON[/size]

any explanations?  or is he just lying?

QuoteThecowgoooesmooo wrote:
Hey Blackman, I just don't understand you man. Facts are facts. The only thing you have told me is that they may have the tendency to manipulate things in the NRA's favor. Your just accusing, and so far, you have not brought one fact into this arguement.


I'll try to say this again. Bowling for Columbine has facts in it. The NRA lawyer disputed those facts. I'm saying I don't trust the NRA lawyer... I'm not "simply ignoring the facts" by being skeptical of the NRA lawyer. Many of the things he complains about in BFC are very minor manipulations in cinematic technique and context, not flat-out lies... like RK just said. And we have gone over all of this before.

Not flat-out lies? Ok, here's a lie. The two boys never bowled in the morning. Michael Moore stated that the two boys did bowl in the morning before the shootings began in his film. Do you want another one Blackman? Also, as stated by Moore in his film, the KKK and the NRA were never created the same year, and had absolutely no connection to each other.  

Well there you go, he just lied Blackman, twice. And that was ONLY two. If you'd like, I can find many many many more, that can be supported with FACTS. Facts that you seem to stray away from.

Minor manipulations? Hahahahah. Come on, are you really serious?

QuoteBy independent researchers you mean people who copied the NRA lawyer's webpage?

I dare you to find a actual fact that supports this statement! Go ahead, find a fact somewhere, that explains that all of these independent researchers have copied the information they present from the NRA.

Quoteoh who cares? it means nothing. i bet they're 300 independent reaserches who could find a ton of faults in the textbook for my history 4000 class: Staging Growth: Modernization, Development, and the Global Cold War.

Who cares? It means nothing? How could it mean nothing, they are facts that have been presented because Moore fictionalized them. This weighs nothing on the arguement cBRAD, congragulations.


**On a side note**
Admins, why are you fucking with my profile? I noticed you turn my PM's so they alert me now, and you also decided to disable my signature. Getting kinda old ya know? That is my signature below, that you decided to disable, If you don't agree with it, then thats fine. But that dosen't mean you have to censor it.

chris


-----------------------------------
Insightful and informative, you can always count on P.

Quoted:

"u picked the wrong person to start shit with mang."

---------------------------------
Scary.

Quote from: aclockworkjjany explanations?  or is he just lying?

It's probably true, but it certainly doesn't prove that gun control doesn't work.

And I'm not a fan of Clinton.

Quote from: Thecowgoooesmooo

Quoteoh who cares? it means nothing. i bet they're 300 independent reaserches who could find a ton of faults in the textbook for my history 4000 class: Staging Growth: Modernization, Development, and the Global Cold War.

Who cares? It means nothing? How could it mean nothing, they are facts that have been presented because Moore fictionalized them. This weighs nothing on the arguement cBRAD, congragulations.

the independent researches could just as easy be full of shit. how do u know their research is accurate? u don't.

and my name is cbrad. its case sensitive, bitch.

Quote from: ThecowgoooesmoooOk, here's a lie. The two boys never bowled in the morning.

You're wrong. They dropped out of the bowling class, but they still bowled that morning.

Quote from: Thecowgoooesmooothe KKK and the NRA were never created the same year, and had absolutely no connection to each other.

The KKK was ended when the NRA was created (have you seen the movie?). There may be no connection between the two, but it's like when Al Franken says we should shoot the elderly into space. Satire. You have to admit it's funny.

Neither of these two things are lies.

Quote from: ThecowgoooesmoooI dare you to find a actual fact that supports this statement! Go ahead, find a fact somewhere, that explains that all of these independent researchers have copied the information they present from the NRA.

How about the fact that the sites you listed a few pages ago have the same lists, the same information, the same conspiracies, and even link to each other? It's like a little network of Michael Moore haters. In other words, not independent. The NRA lawyer's site was the first one to pop up.

Quotethe independent researches could just as easy be full of shit. how do u know their research is accurate? u don't.

Well, ya... Actually cBRAD you can verify that this research is true. For exmaple, I brought an earlier point that the KKK and the NRA were not formed in the same year. You can find these FACTS in history books or cBRAD, you can ride your circus tricycle down to your local library. You can then try reading a encyclopedia.

Quoteand my name is cbrad. its case sensitive, bitch.

Alright cBRAD.

Macguffin what do you think about this name calling towards me? You were so closely analyzing my insults in retalition to theres. Do you have anything to say about the admins who join in on the name calling? Hmm talk about being singled out....


chris

-----------------------------------
Insightful and informative, you can always count on P.

Quoted:

"u picked the wrong person to start shit with mang."

---------------------------------
Scary.

Quote from: Thecowgoooesmooo
Not flat-out lies? Ok, here's a lie. The two boys never bowled in the morning. Michael Moore stated that the two boys did bowl in the morning before the shootings began in his film. Do you want another one Blackman? Also, as stated by Moore in his film, the KKK and the NRA were never created the same year, and had absolutely no connection to each other.  

.

- The website you love so much says that "how could they have gone bowling that morning when it's a proven fact that they dropped out of bowling class/club?!" -- Well, the movie says they went bowling just themselves... at six in the morning without the club.  good reasoning your little site uses... "they have to be in a club to go bowling".  Besides (and I might be wrong here), Moore stated that they were "reported" to have gone bowling... this is a FACT... he's just explaining the title... this is an insignificant detail anyhow.



It's funny... I think that Moore manipulates more than he should, but you're just so passionate about getting into a fight about this.  There are a lot more pressing issues than whether or not the kids went bowling, like  " why is spiderman's shirt hanging in the wrong direction during the wall climbing scene?"

edit:  now it just looks like I'm repeating JB... I'm leaving it anyway

That's what happens with organic webshooters!

But seriously folks, I appreciate this kind of discussion a lot more then other forums where people all put smiley faces, winking faces, tongue sticking out faces, etc at the end of each of their posts as if they are all still on best terms because they are friends4life.  That's so lame, at least here we are a little more truthful

Quote from: Thecowgoooesmooo

Quotethe independent researches could just as easy be full of shit. how do u know their research is accurate? u don't.

Well, ya... Actually cBRAD you can verify that this research is true. For exmaple, I brought up on the earlier point that the KKK and the NRA were not formed in the same year. You can find these FACTS in history books or cBRAD, you can ride your circus tricycle down to your local library. You can then try reading a encyclopedia.

Quoteand my name is cbrad. its case sensitive, bitch.

Alright cBRAD.

Macguffin what do you think about this name calling towards me? You were so closely analyzing my insults in retalition to theres. Do you have anything to say about the admins who join in on the name calling? Hmm talk about being singled out....


chris

1. local libraries r for looooooosers, as r encyclopedias.
2. these independent researchers u speak of are presenting analytical interpretations. i don't care how many 'facts' they use-- it's still subjective.
3. moooo this-
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fjamillan.com%2Ffingerx.gif&hash=1e399955b34233ea9bff1c32d22baf85f3a63e3f)

Quote from: ©brad1. local libraries r for looooooosers

No way...might depend where you live, but i get tons of old DVD's that i can't find at the videostores from my library.  A library card can be like a gun if used right.  hehe.

Quote from: RaikusJust 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.

good heavens, raikus read my mind

Wow...9 pages. "Never argue with an idiot, they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience."

Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanAnd I'm not a fan of Clinton.

may i ask who you are a fan of?  (besides moore.)

Quote from: aclockworkjjmay i ask who you are a fan of?  (besides moore.)

Dennis Kucinich.

Quote from: aclockworkjjI see "end of thread" and it reads, "this is right, we win" again.  It's not about winning or losing.  It's like me going:

"Only a liberal would hug a tree and kill a fetus"

End of thread!!

you've done nothing but prove my point. you didn't read the entire post or the post it was refering to.

Quote from: picolasyou've done nothing but prove my point. you didn't read the entire post or the post it was refering to.

right.  sorry, i didn't realize you had a point..i figured it was just a jab at me.

on dennis...(he could be a lot worse honestly...but I got a kick outta this:

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.kucinich.com%2Fkeebler.jpg&hash=cd10c8f93bb16a10f60cd355f63a6e734ba201d1)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.kucinich.com%2Fimages%2Fkucinich%2520elf.gif&hash=60da926719ec7ac79a47463f22b99bb7df4fa916)
Dennis doesn't have to worry about paying the bills after the 2004 elections if, God forbid, he does not get the presidential nomination and loses his congressional seat.

Keebler Company (www.keebler.com) has just announced that it has retained the services of the congressman as their new spokesman to sell their lines of crackers, cookies and other baked goods.

Asked why he signed up for the gig so far before the 2004 elections, Kucinich replied, "Ya gotta strike when the iron's hot."


It's not known how Dennis will balance his new roll with that of president should he somehow get elected.

Quote from: aclockworkjjsorry, i didn't realize you had a point..i figured it was just a jab at me.

that's okay. it's probably because you didn't read my whole post.

Quote from: RaikusI won't even comment on the sentence structure.

what was wrong with the sentence structure?

Quote from: picolasit's probably because you didn't read my whole post.

no..i did.  But to me, the "bank lady" could just be some cheap slut that i fantasize about everytime i make a deposit.  I didn't understand the point, i guess would be a better way to say it.  

Haven't seen the movie, nor will any dime of mine go to support Moore and his grade school antics.

hehe.

Quote from: aclockworkjjhehe.

Indeed.

Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanIndeed.

i know it's cheap of me to even be in this discussion without seeing the movie...but seriously, i feel very strong about what he did at the oscars...that and i didn't like Moo Cow (btw, hope it's okay if i call you "Moo Cow") being attacked.  I feel this has at least moved into a normal debate...i say we keep it there. no?

Quote from: aclockworkjji feel very strong about what he did at the oscar

And you base your entire opinion of him on this? That's the most extreme thing he's ever done. Have you read any of his books? Have you seen any over his movies? I hope you've at least seen Roger & Me.

Anyway, I still don't understand why you've been debating Bowling for Columbine (or supporting a side) when you haven't seen it.

Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanAnyway, I still don't understand why you've been debating Bowling for Columbine (or supporting a side) when you haven't seen it.

i have seen...roger and me (and that dumb return thing)...pretty much all of the aweful truths...and even some of the Tv Nation thingy.  I read only..What happen to my country....

I didn't like him then and i don't like him now.  and just by reading all this garbage on him (and this film), i feel i have a pretty good idea of what columbine is about.  

He disgraced an academy...that shoulda never given his ass an award (i only say that based on the results...)  He is a disgrace to this country and maybe he should take his canadian bacon ass to a different country if this one is so bad.  

Now,  another thing that itches me wrong...is doesn't the guy live in some 2-3 million dollar mansion?  He is a fuckin' hypocrit if i have ever seen one.  Realize...I live near probably some of the most expensive properties in the States.  Even here...a 2 million dollar home is fuckin' way more than what is needed to get by well off.  He is making tons of money bitching and cryin' about rich people, but yet is living the life.  I just don't get it...

all is I see is a fat white man...making money off an event that was tragic in everyway.

he lives above a Baby Gap...

"I heard this and this and that"... you're just as bad as you claim Moore to be.

anyway... I think a lot of people who protest this movie so much (not all, some have very valid reasons for not liking it) A) haven't read any of his books and probably haven't seen his other films and B) just want to be part of the "I hate Michael Moore club".

I think Moore exagerates a little too much, but I do think he does more good than bad and the majority of the people that criticize him do so for ridiculous reasons.  

If anyone still cares... here's Moore's reply to the NRA http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/wackoattacko/

Quote from: RegularKarate"I heard this and this and that"... you're just as bad as you claim Moore to be.

no...i am not saying i am right and everyone should agree with me.  I am just jusifying where my opinion stems from.  Shit...i wish i was just as bad..that way i would know my electric bill would be gettin' paid this month.

Quote from: RegularKaratehttp://www.michaelmoore.com/words/wackoattacko

I really would like the Moore haters to respond to that.

And you can't just say "OH HE'S LYING" because he actually provides proof. Instead of just saying "this is a fact," he actually gives you sources, even video.

Quote from: Jeremy Blackmanmichaelmoore.com

seeing that alone...i didn't and would never click it....sorry.

Quote from: aclockworkjj

Quote from: Jeremy Blackmanmichaelmoore.com

seeing that alone...i didn't and would never click it....sorry.

Well, you should.  By not doing it, you are pretty much asking people not to listen to your argument.  By not clicking it, you are saying that you are not willing to discuss but rather to tell without any thought of even altering your view.

That's funny... are you afraid of the truth?

He doesn't just say he's not lying... there are links to other websites (some government run sites)... there is video footage... newspaper articles.

you don't have to click it, but I clicked that link to the NRA bullshit... I clicked a lot of those... mainly because I like to make up my own mind.. based on as much information as I can get.

Quote from: RegularKarateare you afraid of the truth?

no..i just feel i already have a justified personal opinion on him.  Here you guys go again...questioning, questioning.  I have a question.

Where does he live?  am I wrong?  cause if i am, i will seriously sick my shoe in my mouth.

ps.

Quote from: RegularKarateI clicked that link to the NRA bullshit...

i didn't.

Quote from: aclockworkjjdoesn't the guy live in some 2-3 million dollar mansion?

Quote from: aclockworkjj
Where does he live?  am I wrong?  cause if i am, i will seriously sick my shoe in my mouth.

Quote from: EARLIER, RegularKaratehe lives above a Baby Gap...

I don't know of many mansions above Baby Gaps (this is mentioned in that link you're scared of)... would you like a sneaker or a pump?

Quote from: aclockworkjj

Quote from: Jeremy Blackmanmichaelmoore.com

seeing that alone...i didn't and would never click it....sorry.

You have to be kidding.

I've looked at all the NRA stuff, even with a reasonably open mind, but you're not even going to go to the website? It's not witchcraft, it's words on a screen. Read it and feel free to disbelieve it. But don't be scared of it. And above all, don't expect to have any credibility when you're not willing to listen to the other side. I can't believe this, it's like the definition of ignorance.

Quote from: EARLIER, RegularKaratehe lives above a Baby Gap...

ok....maybe not a mansion...but what's the going rate for a place above a baby gap in NYC?  hmmmm

Quote from: Jeremy Blackman[ the definition of ignorance.

no...i just already have enough of what i need, to know moore is as fake as the people he is against.

Quote from: aclockworkjji just already have enough of what i need

Quote from: Jeremy Blackmanthe definition of ignorance

Quote from: Merriam WebsterA willful neglect or refusal to acquire knowledge

Quote from: Jeremy Blackmanthe definition of ignorance

haha ...when all else fails claim ignorance jb....

maybe i can just actually think for myself?  ever bother to consider that notion?  Politics...a joke to this non-voting fool.  But Moore...I will call a dipshit all I want...I won't click any links, as i expect people to support their argument.  I have not seen this from anyone other than the Moo Cow in this thread.  

now, now...get all butt hurt?  or show me "the truth"?....i pass the mic.

Quote from: aclockworkjjI won't click any links, as i expect people to support their argument.  

are you stoned?
that didn't make any sense.

Quote from: SHAFTRare you stoned?

yes...very much so.

sorry, what i ment was...i have not clicked any of cows links, nor will i click a link that has a url of moore.com.  sorry...state "your" case here...i will listen and state mine.  I don't care what "joe politian" thinks.  I wanna know what "you" think.

simple enough, no?

Quote from: aclockworkjjmaybe i can just actually think for myself?

Cause you wouldn't want taint your opinions with information, would you?

Just how accurate do you think your assumptions are?

This is ridiculous.

I'm sorry, I don't throw this word around lightly, but you are TRULY being ignorant with this issue.

You can't seriously claim that you can decide that Michael Moore is lying yet refuse to briefly look at the facts behind it and think that your opinion would hold any amount of validity whatsoever.

On one side, it's sad because this represents far too many people in the world we live in.  

On the other side, it looks good for Moore supporters to have someone turn a blind eye to facts like you are.  To claim that you "already know" the truth and refuse to be mildly open minded about it.

You should be less ignorant in matters like this.  I'm sure the people who hate Michael Moore on this board would appreciate their teammates not making them look so bad.

Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanJust how accurate do you think your assumptions are?

This is ridiculous.

I think they are about as accurate as a kid sitting up at.... say...the university of Minn.'s are.  Don't get personally attacking cause you disagree...you have still yet to present a case.  I refuse to click on propaganda...so tell me what i am so misinformed about.  seriously...

Quote from: RegularKarateyou "already know" the truth

no...i claim no truth...i leave that to you all.  I have an opinion.  it's not fact, truth...or maybe even fiction.  just an opinion.

Quote from: aclockworkjjI think they are about as accurate as a kid sitting up at.... say...the university of Minn.'s are.

I'm not ignoring information. Remember, you're ignoring information. There's kind of a difference between the two.

Quote from: aclockworkjjso tell me what i am so misinformed about.  seriously...

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/wackoattacko/

Quote from: Jeremy Blackman"his last 4 posts"

i want to hear it from YOU!  not a website.  the stage is yours.....

Quote from: aclockworkjji want to hear it from YOU!  not a website.  the stage is yours.....

Now you're just being silly. Michael Moore responded to attacks against him. He deserves to be heard. Would you like me to paraphrase it for you so you don't have to poison your eyes?

Michael Moore is the issue here (hence the title of this thread and the subject you're avoiding), and you're not willing to hear from him. The argument was against him, and it's his response, not mine.

Read the website and get it over with.

Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanMichael Moore

I think i have made it clear that i don't give a shit about him.  Call me "silly", but i wanna know how you feel.  You seem to have strong opinions about how i feel.  I put my cards out.  You haven't even anttied up.  I want to hear from Jb...not Michael Moore.  I think I know where he stands...

Quote from: aclockworkjji wanna know how you feel . . . You haven't even anttied up.

Yeah so what do you call this entire thread?

Quote from: aclockworkjjI want to hear from Jb...not Michael Moore..

You know, had I made Bowling for Columbine, I would be happy to respond. Unfortunately, the filmmaker of said movie is Michael Moore. Had I singed the check for the bank account, had I made video documentation proving the whole thing was valid and happened instantly, had I backed up my facts with links to official documents, had I put all of this on my website, I would certaintly direct you to it. Unfortunately, the person who made Bowling for Columbine is Michael Moore, and all of this is on his website.

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/wackoattacko/

Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanBowling for Columbine

too bad this thread has extended beyond that.  JB...when are you willing to put forth yourself?  I have girl to tend to now...watching love liza.  I will check back tomorrow to see if you actually have enough balls to show yer own.  Or do you wanna just keep quoting people, questioning others...and never really justifying your own opinion?(this is where the "official warning" gets sent)

you guys were doing it with the Moo Cow...and sorry...i am done justifying anything...my women hatin', racist ass is waiting, for a fuckin' response, versus a link..  The stage sir...it's gettin' lonely.

this thread reminds me of those pieces of paper that say "turn over" on both sides.

this thread is starting to give me a headache

here, now you don't even have to clink on the link.

How to Deal with the Lies and the Lying Liars When They Lie about "Bowling for Columbine"
by Michael Moore

One thing you get used to when you're in what's called "the public eye" is reading the humorous fiction that others like to write about you. For instance, I have read in quite respectable and trustworthy publications that a) I'm a college graduate (I'm not), b) I was a factory worker (I quit the first day), and c) I have two brothers (I have none). Newsweek wrote that I live in a penthouse on Central Park West (I live above a Baby Gap store, and not on any park), and the Internet Movie Database once listed me as the director of the Elvis movie, "Blue Hawaii" ( I was 6 at the time the film was made, but I was quite skilled in directing my sisters in building me a snowman). Lately, my favorite mistake is the one many reviewers made crediting the cartoon in "Bowling for Columbine" as being the work of the "South Park" creators. It isn't. I wrote it and my buddy Harold Moss's animation studio drew it.

I've enjoyed reading these inventions/mistakes about this "Michael Moore." I mean, who wouldn't want to fantasize about living in penthouses roughhousing with brothers you never had. But lately I've begun to see so many things about me or my work that aren't true. It's become so easy to spread these fictions through the internet (thanks mostly to lazy reporters or web junkies who do all their research by typing in "key words" and then just repeat the same mistakes). And so I wonder that if I don't correct the record, then all of the people who don't know better may just end up being filled with a bunch of stuff that isn't true.

Of course, it would take a lot of my time to contact all these sites and media outlets to correct their errors and I think it's more important I spend my time on my next book or movie so I just let it ride. But is that fair to you, the reader, who has now been told something that isn't true?

With the unexpected and overwhelming success of "Bowling for Columbine" and "Stupid White Men," the fiction that has been written or spoken about me and my work has reached a whole new level of storytelling. It's no longer about making some simple errors or calling me "Roger" Moore. It is now about organized groups going full blast trying to discredit me by knowingly making up lies and repeating them over and over in the hopes that people will believe them – and, then, stop listening to me.

Oh, that it would be so easy!

Fortunately, they are so wound up in their anger and hatred that they have ended up discrediting themselves.

Look, I accept the fact that, if I go after the Thief-in-Chief – and more people buy my book than any other nonfiction book last year – then that is naturally going to send a few of his henchmen after me. Fine. That's okay. I knew that before I got into this and I ain't whining about it now.

I also realize that you just don't go after the NRA and its supporters and then not expect them to come back at you with both barrels (so to speak). These are not nice people and they don't play nice – that's how they got to be so powerful.

So, a whole host of gun lobby groups and individual gun nuts have put up websites where the smears on me range from the pre-adolescent (I'm a "crapweasel," and a "fat fucking piece of shit") to Orwellian-style venom ("Michael Moore hates America!").

I have mostly ignored this silliness. But a few weeks ago, this lunatic crap hit the mainstream fan. CNN actually put some guy on a show saying that my film contains "so many falsehoods, one after the other, after the other, after the other." They introduced him as a "critic" and "research director" of the "Independence Institute." He seemed mighty impressive.

Except they failed to tell their viewers who he really was: a contributing editor of Gun Week Magazine.

CNN saw no need to inform the viewers that their "expert"-- who has made a career out of opposing any form of gun control–has a vested interest in convincing the public that "Bowling for Columbine" is a horribly rotten movie.

So, what do you do when the nutcases succeed in getting on CNN? Do you just keep ignoring them? How do you handle people who say the Holocaust never happened or that monkeys fly? Ignore them and they'll go away? If you give them any attention, all the nuts will come out of the woodwork.

And that's what happened. I saw another one of these lunatics, this time on MSNBC. A guy named John Lofton. He went on and on about how my movie is all made up. The anchor on MSNBC never challenged him on his lies and never told the viewers who he really was – a right wing crazy who believes Bush is too liberal. He was once an advisor to Pat Buchanan's Presidential campaign, and was a direct-mail writer for Jesse Helms. Writing in opposition to Hate Crime bills in the conservative Washington Times (where he was a columnist from '83 to '89), Lofton explained:

Take, for example, this business of so-called "anti-gay violence." This bill will be used to go after only those who commit crimes against people because they are homosexuals. But this is not the most pernicious form of "anti-gay violence." Not by a long shot.
The most violent - indeed fatal 100 percent of the time - form of "anti-gay violence" has been committed not by so-called "homophobes" who bash homosexuals - but by male homosexuals and bisexuals against other male bisexuals and homosexuals.
To date, tens of thousands of male bisexual and homosexual men are dead in our country because of AIDS, because they engaged in high-risk homosexual sex.
Is this not "anti-gay violence" which numbers its victims far beyond anything any "homophobes" have done?
Well, I figured I better deal with this because the nutters were now being turned into "respectable critics" by a media that either had an agenda or were just plain lazy.

So, how crazy are the things they've said about "Bowling for Columbine?" Here are my favorites:

"That scene where you got the gun in the bank was staged!"
Well of course it was staged! It's a movie! We built the "bank" as a set and then I hired actors to play the bank tellers and the manager and we got a toy gun from the prop department and then I wrote some really cool dialogue for me and them to say! Pretty neat, huh?

Or...

The Truth: In the spring of 2001, I saw a real ad in a real newspaper in Michigan announcing a real promotion that this real bank had where they would give you a gun (as your up-front interest) for opening up a Certificate of Deposit account. They promoted this in publications all over the country – "More Bang for Your Buck!"

There was news coverage of this bank giving away guns, long before I even shot the scene there. The Chicago Sun Times wrote about how the bank would "hand you a gun" with the purchase of a CD. Those are the precise words used by a bank employee in the film.

When you see me going in to the bank and walking out with my new gun in "Bowling for Columbine" – that is exactly as it happened. Nothing was done out of the ordinary other than to phone ahead and ask permission to let me bring a camera in to film me opening up my account. I walked into that bank in northern Michigan for the first time ever on that day in June 2001, and, with cameras rolling, gave the bank teller $1,000 – and opened up a 20-year CD account. After you see me filling out the required federal forms ("How do you spell Caucasian?") – which I am filling out here for the first time – the bank manager faxed it to the bank's main office for them to do the background check. The bank is a licensed federal arms dealer and thus can have guns on the premises and do the instant background checks (the ATF's Federal Firearms database—which includes all federally approved gun dealers—lists North Country Bank with Federal Firearms License #4-38-153-01-5C-39922).

Within 10 minutes, the "OK" came through from the firearms background check agency and, 5 minutes later, just as you see it in the film, they handed me a Weatherby Mark V Magnum rifle (If you'd like to see the outtakes, click here).

And it is that very gun that I still own to this day. I have decided the best thing to do with this gun is to melt it down into a bust of John Ashcroft and auction it off on E-Bay (more details on that later). All the proceeds will go to The Brady Campaign To Prevent Gun Violence to fight all these lying gun nuts who have attacked my film and make it possible on a daily basis for America's gun epidemic to rage on.

Here's another whopper I've had to listen to from the pro-gun groups:

"The Lockheed factory in Littleton, Colorado, has nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction!"
That's right! That big honkin' rocket sitting behind the Lockheed spokesman in "Bowling for Columbine"-- the one with "US AIRFORCE" written on it in BIG ASS letters – well, I admit it, I snuck in and painted that on that Titan IV rocket when Lockheed wasn't looking! After all, those rockets were only being used for the Weather Channel! Ha Ha Ha! I sure fooled everyone!!

Or....

The Truth: Lockheed Martin is the largest weapons-maker in the world. The Littleton facility has been manufacturing missiles, missile components, and other weapons systems for almost half a century. In the 50s, workers at the Littleton facility constructed the first Titan intercontinental ballistic missile, designed to unleash a nuclear warhead on the Soviet Union; in the mid-80s, they were partially assembling MX missiles, instruments for the minuteman ICBM, a space laser weapon called Zenith Star, and a Star Wars program known as Brilliant Pebbles.

In the full, unedited interview I did with the Lockheed spokesman, he told me that Lockheed started building nuclear missiles in Littleton and "played a role in the development of Peacekeeper MX Missiles."

As for what's currently manufactured in Littleton, McCollum told me, "They (the rockets sitting behind him) carry mainly very large national security satellites, some we can't talk about." (see him say it here)

Since that interview, the Titan IV rockets manufactured in Littleton have been critical to the war effort in both Afghanistan and Iraq. These rockets launched advanced satellites that were "instrumental in providing command-and-control operations over Iraq...for the rapid targeting of Navy Tomahawk cruise missiles involved in Iraqi strikes and clandestine communications with Special Operations Forces." (view source here).

That Lockheed lets the occasional weather or TV satellite hitch a ride on one of its rockets should not distract anyone from Lockheed's main mission and moneymaker in Littleton: to make instruments that help kill people. That two of Littleton's children decided to engineer their own mass killing is what these guys and the Internet crazies don't want to discuss.

The oddest of all the smears thrown at "Bowling for Columbine" is this one:

"The film depicts NRA president Charlton Heston giving a speech near Columbine; he actually gave it a year later and 900 miles away. The speech he did give is edited to make conciliatory statements sound like rudeness."
Um, yeah, that's right! I made it up! Heston never went there! He never said those things!

Or....

The Truth: Heston took his NRA show to Denver and did and said exactly what we recounted. From the end of my narration setting up Heston's speech in Denver, with my words, "a big pro-gun rally," every word out of Charlton Heston's mouth was uttered right there in Denver, just 10 days after the Columbine tragedy. But don't take my word – read the transcript of his whole speech. Heston devotes the entire speech to challenging the Denver mayor and mocking the mayor's pleas that the NRA "don't come here." Far from deliberately editing the film to make Heston look worse, I chose to leave most of this out and not make Heston look as evil as he actually was.

Why are these gun nuts upset that their brave NRA leader's words are in my film? You'd think they would be proud of the things he said. Except, when intercut with the words of a grieving father (whose son died at Columbine and happened to be speaking in a protest that same weekend Heston was at the convention center), suddenly Charlton Heston doesn't look so good does he? Especially to the people of Denver (and, the following year, to the people of Flint) who were still in shock over the tragedies when Heston showed up.

As for the clip preceding the Denver speech, when Heston proclaims "from my cold dead hands," this appears as Heston is being introduced in narration. It is Heston's most well-recognized NRA image – hoisting the rifle overhead as he makes his proclamation, as he has done at virtually every political appearance on behalf of the NRA (before and since Columbine). I have merely re-broadcast an image supplied to us by a Denver TV station, an image which the NRA has itself crafted for the media, or, as one article put it, "the mantra of dedicated gun owners" which they "wear on T-shirts, stamp it on the outside of envelopes, e-mail it on the Internet and sometimes shout it over the phone.". Are they now embarrassed by this sick, repulsive image and the words that accompany it?

I've also been accused of making up the gun homicide counts in the United States and various countries around the world. That is, like all the rest of this stuff, a bald-face lie. Every statistic in the film is true. They all come directly from the government. Here are the facts, right from the sources:

The U.S. figure of 11,127 gun deaths comes from a report from the Center for Disease Control. Japan's gun deaths of 39 was provided by the National Police Agency of Japan; Germany: 381 gun deaths from Bundeskriminalamt (German FBI); Canada: 165 gun deaths from Statistics Canada, the governmental statistics agency; United Kingdom: 68 gun deaths, from the Centre for Crime and Justice studies in Britain; Australia: 65 gun deaths from the Australian Institute of Criminology; France: 255 gun deaths, from the International Journal of Epidemiology.

Finally, I've even been asked about whether the two killers were at bowling class on the morning of the shootings. Well, that's what their teacher told the investigators, and that's what was corroborated by several eyewitness reports of students to the police, the FBI, and the District Attorney's office. I'll tell you who wasn't there -- me! That's why in the film I pose it as a question:

"So did Dylan and Eric show up that morning and bowl two games before moving on to shoot up the school? And did they just chuck the balls down the lane? Did this mean something?"
Of course, it's a silly discussion, and it misses the whole, larger point: that blaming bowling for their killing spree would be as dumb as blaming Marilyn Manson.

But the gun nuts don't want to discuss either specific points or larger issues because when that debate is held, they lose. Most Americans want stronger gun laws (among others, see the 2001 National Gun Policy Survey from the University of Chicago's National Opinion Research Center) – and the gun lobbies know it. That is why it's critical to distract and alter the debate – and go after anyone who questions why we have so many gun deaths in America (especially if he does it in best selling books and popular films).

I can guarantee to you, without equivocation, that every fact in my movie is true. Three teams of fact-checkers and two groups of lawyers went through it with a fine tooth comb to make sure that every statement of fact is indeed an indisputable fact. Trust me, no film company would ever release a film like this without putting it through the most vigorous vetting process possible. The sheer power and threat of the NRA is reason enough to strike fear in any movie studio or theater chain. The NRA will go after you without mercy if they think there's half a chance of destroying you. That's why we don't have better gun laws in this country – every member of Congress is scared to death of them.

Well, guess what. Total number of lawsuits to date against me or my film by the NRA? NONE. That's right, zero. And don't forget for a second that if they could have shut this film down on a technicality they would have. But they didn't and they can't – because the film is factually solid and above reproach. In fact, we have not been sued by any individual or group over the statements made in "Bowling for Columbine?" Why is that? Because everything we say is true – and the things that are our opinion, we say so and leave it up to the viewer to decide if our point of view is correct or not for each of them.

So, faced with a thoroughly truthful and honest film, those who object to the film's political points are left with the choice of debating us on the issues in the film – or resorting to character assassination. They have chosen the latter. What a sad place to be.

Actually, I have found one typo in the theatrical release of the film. It was a caption that read, "Willie Horton released by Dukakis and kills again." In fact, Willie Horton was a convicted murderer who, after escaping from furlough, raped a woman and stabbed her fiancé, but didn't kill him. The caption has been permanently corrected on the DVD and home video version of the film and replaced with, "Willie Horton released. Then rapes a woman." My apologies to Willie Horton and the Horton family for implying he is a double-murderer when he is only a single-murderer/rapist. And my apologies to the late Lee Atwater who, on his deathbed, apologized for having engineered the smear campaign against Dukakis (but correctly identified Mr. Horton as a single-murderer!).

Well, there you have it. I suppose the people who tell their make-believe stories about me and my work will continue to do so. Maybe they should be sued for knowingly libeling me. Or maybe I'll just keep laughing – laughing all the way to the end of the Bush Administration -- scheduled, I believe, for sometime in November of next year.

Yours,

Michael Moore
Director, "Bowling for Columbine"

Quote from: xerxes
Yours,

Michael Moore
Director, "Bowling for Columbine"

whew...good thing I read that first.  saved me some time.  Sorry JB after re-reading this stuff again, i know i sounded like an asshole to you...it wasn't my tone, please realize that.

Let's clear something up... you won't even read it... okay... you're not going to acknowledge that it's possible that you're wrong.  

But what the fuck are you asking for JB's "opinion" on?  You keep saying that you want his opinion, but on what?  He's already stated his opinions a thousand times over.  The issue here is "Is Michael Moore making shit up?"... the answer... is above you.  And in that link... from the man himself.  Including links to other web sites and video clips to back him up.

You are arguing nothing right now.

And stop thinking that you are standing up for anyone.  All your doing is being an opposition, but an opposition with no other purpose than being an opposition.

Quote from: Gamblor the ManwhoreWow...9 pages. "Never argue with an idiot, they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience."

amen.

let's stop this guys. can't argue w/ ignorance. we're beating a dead horse here.

Quote from: aclockworkjjSorry JB after re-reading this stuff again, i know i sounded like an asshole to you...it wasn't my tone, please realize that.

I don't believe you. And I've learned not to trust your apologies.

Quote from: aclockworkjj

Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanBowling for Columbine

too bad this thread has extended beyond that.  JB...when are you willing to put forth yourself? . . . never really justifying your own opinion?

If you want to read my personal feelings about Michael Moore, go to this thread (http://xixax.com/viewtopic.php?t=894&start=0). I even had a heart-to-heart debate with Godardian. In fact, this thread kind of started out that way, and it only became explosively about Michael Moore's response when we got stuck on it because you refuse to expose yourself to it. What do you mean, "too bad this thread has extended beyond BFC"... we haven't even arrived at it yet!

The last few pages here are a good example of you making things intensely personal instead of having a normal human debate.... Notice how you repeatedly have been telling me to keep Michael Moore out of this (which doesn't make any sense). Not everything has to be a personal fight. Have some respect.

so i should base my opinion on michael moore... based on how he (himself) jusifies his own lies....with more lies?  The guy is a fickin' idiot, i don't care what he has to say, nor how he justifies it.    

Seriously...get off your horse, i never said i was "right" nor anyone was "wrong".  

Question? (again):
How much do you think a place above Baby Gap goes for in NYC?
I believe he told Fox News, on air, 1.9 million.  Regardless, maybe that is incorrect, but i guarentee you it's not cheap, nor necessary.

I am glad this guy can bitch about the rich, and get rich in doing so.  And meanwhile he gets these petty followers just eating his garbage up.  You don't see that you are supporting one of the dirtiest ones in the business.  My argument is on him as a fuckin' hypocrit...not as a truth teller.  

ps.
so i started reading that shit...got about half way through.  I am done.  Good thing he cleared up that he doesn't live in a Penthouse, shit...i am sold.  He didn't weasel his way around that at all.  I am suppose to be content thinking that apartments above Baby Gap aren't expensive?  

You don't realize i don't care.  You guys act like i am sitting here shouting, "yo, let's grab our 6-shooters and go shoot some shit".  Hahaha...in fact the only gun i have ever shot was a red rider bb gun.  I am not promoting gun anything.  But i am demoting this guy as a individual "crapweasel".  He is gettin rich bitching about the rich.

I ran across this (just to show you i do look at shit)...and i think this guy hits it on the head without gettin' wrapped up in the political bullshit:

Michael and Me  
Friday, October 24, 2003

"What's that in your pocket?"

"A camera."

"No cameras allowed."

"Don't you know the headliner? He's made a career out of taking film crews into places where cameras are prohibited."

"Sorry, we can't let you bring that in."

"Come on, this is Michael Moore we're talking..."

"Get the tazer."

This was the scene last night at the Memorial Coliseum...or at least it could have been.

Blog's mission was a simple one. Take a camera to last night's "An Evening With Michael Moore" and get kicked out. Unfortunately, Blog never made it to the security check point. The last ticket was sold early yesterday afternoon.

Only in a place where it rains 345 days out of the years would people pay between $15 - $29 to get into a book signing. Only in a state like Oregon would such a thing be held in a 12,000 seat auditorium. Only in a town like Portland would the event sell-out.

There was a time when Blog approved of the author/director's noble efforts. Roger and Me remains a bold classic and TV Nation deserved a ten year run on NBC. Despite the alleged factual errors contained in Bowling for Columbine, many of which have been nicely rebuked by Moore on his website, at least it doesn't offer an easy answer for the tragedy (unlike a certain Gus Van Sant film...). Many of Moore's critics describe him as a firebrand who disregards facts to push an agenda. Of course, most of them could easily be accused of the same thing (Limbaugh? O'Riely? Coulter?).

Then Moore won an Academy Award and unapologetically turned the stage of a ditzy Hollywood ceremony into a pulpit. Moore deserved to be booed, not for speaking out against the president, but for choosing the wrong place and the wrong time. He seems to be suffering from a Citizen Kane-esque ego disorder and last night's event in Portland only further fuels this presumption.

Last night, KOIN News offered a 30 seconds of footage from his stint at the Coliseum. Standing in front of a monitor which enlarged his head to the size of empty Flint storefront, Moore offered his views on the presidency and the economy to a frustrated crowd. The image immediately recalled a certain scene from Orson Welles' old film. With tickets going for $29 and copies of "Dude, Where's My Country?" selling in the foyer for upwards of $17, the event was awfully expensive for all those PSU students and unemployed Baby-Boomers waiting to get in.

Moore's website neglects to mention if any of the proceeds of last night's event, or any of his other dates around the country, were/are going to charity. Blog assumes not, since these things are usually well-publicized in strong, bold fonts. He'll be speaking at a similar "book-signing" at WSU tonight.

The appearance was a part of a nation-wide promotional tour for his new book. Other authors don't charge for book signings but, well, they also don't draw the same size crowds. While it was probably necessary for Moore's management to charge something to pay for the venue rentals on this tour, $29 is awfully high for a show lacking pyrotechnics and electric guitars.

On Monday night, the Red Hot Chili Peppers and the Flaming Lips also played the Coliseum and charged the same price as Moore. Instead of smug political musings and reckless self-promotion on a bare stage, they offered 2+ hours of music, explosions and laser lights.

Is Michael Moore exploiting the people he claims to defend? Has he become a hypocrite like Kane, willing to trade his laurels for $? Is he really that desperate to get out of the apartment over the Baby Gap? Did he really stay at the Colesium afterwards to sign all those books? Is Blog making too many assumptions here without facts to back them up? Is this post starting to sound like the narration for one Moore's documentaries?

The answer to all of these questions, in the words of Kid Notorious, is "you bet your ass."

Well, if that's true (I'm sure "Blog" is very reputable) then that's sad, but it's asside from the fact that the subject is still his books and films.  Particularly BFC.  Which you still have completely ignored... it doesn't matter anymore though, really.  You don't want to admit you may have been wrong about a film you've never seen.

Quote from: BLOG?
There was a time when Blog approved of the author/director's noble efforts. Roger and Me remains a bold classic and TV Nation deserved a ten year run on NBC. Despite the alleged factual errors contained in Bowling for Columbine, many of which have been nicely rebuked by Moore on his website, at least it doesn't offer an easy answer for the tragedy (unlike a certain Gus Van Sant film...).

What easy answers did Elephant give?

Quote from: RegularKarateI'm sure "Blog" is very reputable

he is probably just a student wanting in on the action.  Honestly, i don't know.  But i don't doubt for one minute that moore was charging that much.  Shit, he did the same thing out here...i don't know how much the tickets were (where's md?  he went).  

Regardless of how unreliable that guy may be.  I think he puts the shit out in cut and dry fashion.  the best part being:

Quote from: BlogWith tickets going for $29 and copies of "Dude, Where's My Country?" selling in the foyer for upwards of $17, the event was awfully expensive for all those PSU students and unemployed Baby-Boomers waiting to get in.

it's exactly the reason i will not even spend $2 on a rental of this film.

Are you willing to get back to the argument, which is... did he lie in BFC? If you read "the first half," you mostly read his introduction and his defense of his character...

Quote from: aclockworkjjso i should base my opinion on michael moore... based on how he (himself) jusifies his own lies....with more lies?

...and it might be useful to read the rest of it, which actually justifies the facts of Bowling for Columbine with external evidence, not just his word. Think about this. You're assuming what's on his website but refuse to look at it. You've taken the first step, you just have a little farther to go. Watch the deleted footage from BFC that proves the bank transaction was completely spontaneous and legitimate. Follow the links to reports backing up his assertions. He justifies everything externally, like he does with his books.

Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanAre you willing to get back to the argument, which is... did he lie in BFC?

yes...sorry for pulluting this shit with my personal opinion on moore as an individual.  Maybe i will run to my friends and borrow his DVD of it.  But Moore is not gettin' any money from me!!!  

ps. JB, i wouldn't have apologized if I didn't feel bad.

Quote from: SoNowThen

Quote from: RaikusJust 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.

good heavens, raikus read my mind

Not mine.

Quote from: godardianI think everyone knows that, actually. All arguments are a biased source vs. a biased source, and no documentary could ever be completely objective. Cowgoesmoooooo didn't exactly come up with trenchant, ass-kicking arguments, though, which is what you wrongly claimed; his arguments and sources are as biased and full of holes, if not more so, than anyone else's. His triumphant stance of "objectivity" and revelation were sheeer b.s.

You're also wrong that he's just reasonably "debating." His tone is vituperative and spiteful. It's painfully clear that he's picking a fight. Q.E.D.

I stand by that.

I also think that people are unduly focused on Michael Moore. When it doesn't even have to be proved that the current administration is full of liars and hypocrites who feel no need to hide the fact that they're completely ignorant of ordinary Americans when they're not screwing them worse than they've been screwed since the Reagan-Bush Dark Years 1980-1992, why fight about a documentary filmmaker with no direct policy-making power?

I think he really means to present the truth and really cares about policy and conventional wisdom as it applies to the average American; even if he fails, that still makes him better than most of his enemies in the upper political spheres (where the power is) of the shifty, dissembling, destructively immoral and unethical right wing. Even if his film is part propaganda- I'm not saying it is, I'm saying "if"- where's the indignant, rabid thread about how our mainstream media is extremely propagandistic and obviously firmly in the grasp of the right wing Republican's velvet-gloved iron fist? Where's "Fox News Channel and its totally biased bullshit," etc? Don't more people watch Fox News (or ABC news... or CNN... or their local news) than have seen Bowling for Columbine?

From reading all the above, it's clear to me that this was a red-herring thread started by someone who knew which buttons to push and who people would defend. It's childish.

Quote from: godardianwhere's the indignant, rabid thread about how our mainstream media is extremely propagandistic and obviously firmly in the grasp of the right wing Republican's velvet-gloved iron fist? Where's "Fox News Channel and its totally biased bullshit," etc?

You've inspired me to liberate a few threads:

http://www.xixax.com/viewtopic.php?t=4098

http://www.xixax.com/viewtopic.php?t=3833

Tolerating this thread makes me feel like a real man.

I've also discovered what exactly gives me a headache when reading every post on the pages I missed. For those interested, perhaps Pedro being one, who may or may not have the answer, I have at least discovered whats giving ME the headache, and here it is:

Reading posts that reek with sophistication and then reading posts that are drenched in naivete.

Quote from: CinephileReading posts that reek with sophistication and then reading posts that are drenched in naivete.

explain please...

or are you another one that fears to have a voice?  Seriously, explain, ...or go away.

Quote from: aclockworkjj

Quote from: CinephileReading posts that reek with sophistication and then reading posts that are drenched in naivete.

explain please...

or are you another one that fears to have a voice?  Seriously, explain, ...or go away.

Terrible irony here.

Quote from: CinephileTerrible irony here.

say something or go back to stealing av's...seriously.  my cards are out.

ps. i have seen and lived in more differnet areas of the states than most...and my opinion stems from that...so tell me how i am more naive than a kid sitting in a college lecture, claiming about how he knows how the world is...cause some dumb fatfuck like michael moore says so???

.damnn, this thread reaks of bad  "lifetime TV" movie drama....  :wink:

......

lock it again.  and cinephile, the thing that gives me a headache is along the same lines....everyone here seems is too close minded, so there's not as much discussion as just bitching.

Damn! I never read this thread b/c I don't care for MM. I thought it might have been the final kicker for acjj and decided to read the entire thing.

As said before, no real discussion about the actual movie other than beliefs. Seemed like there were strong opinions and a few closed minds as well. Hell, ppl should respect each other's point and not argue about who is right.

This whole thread has given me a headache, as many others have said.

I tried to keep this on topic for awhile, but I think its impossible.

And I know, if I reply with a post relating to the topic, in less then 2 replys, it will be completely off topic ignoring my first reply. Ha

So have at it, all you master debaters!



chris

I liked "Bowling for Columbine".  I liked it, because the film could have easily been about why pro-gun advocates are so wrong and why anti-gun advocates are so right. But it wasn't.  

In the beginning... Moore approached the matter as: "getting rid of every gun in America" would make us safer. This was smart, because it grabbed a hold of the audience.  But then just when you think his case is done, he talks about how other countries have guns all over the place, but DON'T HAVE CRIME.

The bigger issue is, how we are as a people.  He gave a new argument in the entire gun issue... and one that hasn't been year before. It's a very powerful film.. and most people refused to see that because they were too busy trying to find ways to hate Moore as they watched it.  I for one, am a liberal who was against guns in the homes of Americans but since seeing Moore's movie... I am for it.  So to say that Moore's theories make people more liberal... your missing the point!

Don't get me wrong... he did attack Bush towards the end of the film... but a great hidden message was there... when all was said and done.

Quote from: ckad79I for one, am a liberal who was against guns in the homes of Americans but since seeing Moore's movie... I am for it.

Why?

Quote from: ThecowgoooesmoooThe fact that Moore blatantly lies and fools the viewer to be swayed by his viewpoint.

ummmm.....  that's what documentaries do.  once you edit footage you sway, no even better, you shape the way of the film is presented to the audience.  it's called editing, once you make a cut, footage is no longer object but rather subjective.  take a class on filmmaking and you'll know the reason why.

ps
everyone sways the facts, either liberal or conservative.  they take facts and sway people in believing this or not with arguements.  either "pro" or "con" but it's up the individual to make a choice whether to believe it or not.

pps
all documentaries and filmmakers do this, moron!!!

people have told him that already, but, according to him, he saw a movie that declared absolute truth in chicago so everyone is wrong.

"the cinema is truth at 24 frames per second, and every cut is a lie."
-godard.

Quotepeople have told him that already, but, according to him, he saw a movie that declared absolute truth in chicago so everyone is wrong.

I will stand by my arguement that Documentary films can be objective. Im taking a class right now VID112, my teacher is an acclaimed documentary filmmaker, I got into a debate about this issue today, with him.

Because this is interesting... Here is the definition of a Documentary...

doc·u·men·ta·ry    
adj.
1)Consisting of, concerning, or based on documents.
2)Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.

Now if what your saying is true, that no documentary can be objective... Then these films, shouldn't be called a documentary. And that means the entire definition of the word Documentary is void. Get what Im saying?


chris

Quote from: Thecowgoooesmooo

Quotepeople have told him that already, but, according to him, he saw a movie that declared absolute truth in chicago so everyone is wrong.

I will stand by my arguement that Documentary films can be objective. Im taking a class right now VID112, my teacher is an acclaimed documentary filmmaker, I got into a debate about this issue today, with him.

Because this is interesting... Here is the definition of a Documentary...

doc·u·men·ta·ry    
adj.
1)Consisting of, concerning, or based on documents.
2)Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.

Now if what your saying is true, that no documentary can be objective... Then these films, shouldn't be called a documentary. And that means the entire definition of the word Documentary is void. Get what Im saying?


chris

The definition doesn't specify that the work itself must be objective, though; you could easily say that that definition has to do with the intentions of the process, not the end result. Note also that "film" is excluded entirely from that definition (though I don't believe written journalism is ever entirely objective, either).

In a documentary film, every edit and every choice the filmmaker has made as far as where to point the camera is an editorialization, if not an insertion of fictional matter.

Therefore, that definition is either restricted to stylistic mores/intentions, is too broad for the purposes of this discussion, or is simply incomplete or inaccurate.

Quote from: godardianIn a documentary film, every edit and every choice the filmmaker has made as far as where to point the camera is an editorialization, if not an insertion of fictional matter.

But the job of a documentarian, a good documentarian, is to edit the film in a way that the facts are best displayed. As I said before, a documentary should be approached like a science project. Name your subject, name your situation and pronounce a hypothesis for the project. Then test it and reveal your result. Normally the conclusion displays a different outcome from the hypothesis.

The same should hold true for a documentary and many people agree with this (which is a major reason for the popularity of the Dogme 95 "Vows of Chasity"). If the outcome of a project is decided before the proof displays it, if fictional matter is inserted into and passed off as fact, and if parts are spun to get to the decided outcome, it shouldn't be considered a documentary.

Quote from: RaikusBut the job of a documentarian, a good documentarian, is to edit the film in a way that the facts are best displayed.

The meaning of that is subjective.

Quote from: Jeremy Blackman

Quote from: ckad79I for one, am a liberal who was against guns in the homes of Americans but since seeing Moore's movie... I am for it.

Why?

Because Moore proved the problem isn't how many guns we have, it's how we act as a people.  Most people are trying so hard to shove him off for being a liberal, that they are missing the point.  It's not the guns, it's us.

And if this board is about directors... not writers...what do you guys thinking of Moore's directing? Just curious.

godardian is right in saying that the definition is either too broad or too incomplete, as it doesn't even specify if it's the intention of the filmmaker or the actual end product.
I've taken film classes on documentaries as well, I've chatted about documentary filmmaking with Albert Maysles, whose production company is now here based in Boston (if you're taking a documentary class right now then you don't need me to tell you who he is) and even that old slick mofo won't claim to be subjective.  How can you stay objective when you're presented 100 hours of raw information and have to narrow it all down to 2 hours?  

If you wanna play the game of looking shit up in the dictionary, here's a definition of objective in the merriam webster dictionary:

1ob•jec•tive \eb-"jek-tiv, ab-\ adjective (1620)
1 a : relating to or existing as an object of thought without consideration of independent existence — used chiefly in medieval philosophy
b : of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind <objective reality> <our reveries. . . are significantly and repeatedly shaped by our transactions with the objective world — Marvin Reznikoff> — compare subjective 3a
c of a symptom of disease : perceptible to persons other than the affected individual — compare subjective 4c
d : involving or deriving from sense perception or experience with actual objects, conditions, or phenomena <objective awareness> <objective data>
2 : relating to, characteristic of, or constituting the case of words that follow prepositions or transitive verbs
3 a : expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations <objective art> <an objective history of the war> <an objective judgment>
b of a test : limited to choices of fixed alternatives and reducing subjective factors to a minimum syn see material, fair
ob•jec•tive•ly adverb
ob•jec•tive•ness noun
ob•jec•tiv•i•ty \'ab-'jek-"ti-ve-te, eb-\ noun

(C)1996 Zane Publishing, Inc. and Merriam-Webster, Incorporated.  All rights reserved.

see that?  Having reality INDEPENDENT OF THE MIND--how can you do that as a living breathing person making films?

Quote from: Thecowgoooesmooo

Quotepeople have told him that already, but, according to him, he saw a movie that declared absolute truth in chicago so everyone is wrong.

I will stand by my arguement that Documentary films can be objective. Im taking a class right now VID112, my teacher is an acclaimed documentary filmmaker, I got into a debate about this issue today, with him.

Because this is interesting... Here is the definition of a Documentary...

doc·u·men·ta·ry    
adj.
1)Consisting of, concerning, or based on documents.
2)Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.

Now if what your saying is true, that no documentary can be objective... Then these films, shouldn't be called a documentary. And that means the entire definition of the word Documentary is void. Get what Im saying?


chris

Quote from: petesee that?  Having reality INDEPENDENT OF THE MIND--how can you do that as a living breathing person making films?

Amen.

Quote from: ckad79Because Moore proved the problem isn't how many guns we have, it's how we act as a people.  Most people are trying so hard to shove him off for being a liberal, that they are missing the point.  It's not the guns, it's us.

Alright, so you're not seeing guns as "evil" in themselves. But are they really necessary? Isn't the point that guns are pointless? And if we have a violent national personality, aren't guns going to perpetuate that, especially if we cling to them?

Quote from: Jeremy Blackman
Alright, so you're not seeing guns as "evil" in themselves. But are they really necessary? Isn't the point that guns are pointless? And if we have a violent national personality, aren't guns going to perpetuate that, especially if we cling to them?

Guns serve on purpose: killing.  I think they were very helpful for hunting for a while, but we don't rely on venisen, squirrel and rabbit to survive.  The only reason for guns now is security to fight back against someone who has a gun.  

It's too late to much abuot them, and most folks who have guns are adamant about keeping them.  

There isn't a probable way to fix the problem without death.  Again, by the fault of guns.

pardon my ignorance. what is a mockumentary?

a mockumentary or mocumentary is a fiction film presented as a documentary film. they are usually comedic, often parodic in nature, and are often presented as historical documentaries with b-roll and talking heads discussing past events or as cinema verite pieces following people as they go through various events.

thanks.
like some of the black adder episodes, then. And monty python stuff.and the office.

When I think of mockumentary, I think of Spinal Tap.  

Would that be a mockumentary?

Quote from: rustinglassthanks.
like some of the black adder episodes, then. And monty python stuff.and the office.

no. a mockumentary is presented in the same style as a documentary. those are just comedies.

Quote from: aClockworkWalrusWhen I think of mockumentary, I think of Spinal Tap.

Would that be a mockumentary?

yes.

in a funny was Best in Show was a mockumentary...

Would you consider Schindler's List a mockumentary?  I'm referring to the new special edition version with a laugh track dubbed in.

Quote from: NEON MERCURYin a funny was Best in Show was a mockumentary...

and in a definition-type way.

this was one of the best threads ever...

Quotethis was one of the best threads ever...

Why?


on a side note

i dont know how in the fuck this thread wasen't locked...


chris

what was wrong with the sentence structure, Ravi

?

Children on Easter egg hunt find guns instead

FLINT, Michigan (AP) -- -- A group of children hunting for Easter eggs Saturday during a church event found two loaded handguns outside an elementary school.

Flint police said officers were called to the scene and also recovered a BB gun and a broken toy gun on the grounds of Gundry Elementary School. No one was injured, Sgt. Michael Coote said.

One of the guns discharged when it was dropped, according to a police report, but it was unclear who dropped it.

The pastor of Ruth Street Baptist Church told WJRT-TV that one of the handguns had a bullet in the chamber, and the other handgun's clip had bullets in it.

"It's terrible that something like this has happened," Pastor Namon Marshall told the station.

Coote said he did not know how long the guns had been in the park.

Police opened an investigation after confiscating the weapons.

Quote from: ThecowgoooesmoooI thought I would create a thread devoted to this, because it has been on my mind for quite some time. The fact that Moore blatantly lies and fools the viewer to be swayed by his viewpoint. This liberal, like most liberals, is a total fool. What's funny is that Moore trys to sell Bowling for Columbine as a documentary when it is clearly a MOCKUMENTARY!

Any opinions or thoughts on this debate?


chris
(and yes I do know, another thread has discussions about this, but I want this thread to be devoted to this arguement)

I agree.

Mockumentary.

*drum*
*drum*
*drum*
*drum*
... and so it begins again...

Quote from: MyxomatosisI agree.

Mockumentary.

Well, thank you for reviving a dead issue. That was asked a little over 4 months ago and ended shortly thereafter.

It's a documentary.

I think it's a rockumentary.

end of thread.

This was a classic thread. So many people got owned in it.

Quote from: StefenThis was a classic thread. So many people got owned in it.

hahahahaha
i can relate to the headache thing  , i feel my head's about to explode.

Quote from: Pubrickend of thread.

haha....
This thread is like James Bond.

Quote from: mollyhaha....
This thread is like James Bond.

with licence to kill?

dude I was awesome in this thread.  Come to think of it, I'm awesome period.