Home | Community | Message Board

North Spore
Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: North Spore Bulk Substrate   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder, Kratom Powder for Sale, Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Bridgetown Botanicals CBD Edibles   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale, Red Vein Kratom

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Next >  [ show all ]
Invisiblesilversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
Re: Moore hits back [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #1955184 - 09/26/03 06:53 PM (17 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

That sword slices both ways -- if what Moore did wasn't "lying", then for sure what Bush and Blair and the rest said about intelligence reports re Iraq's capabilities most certainly wasn't lying.



I've said time and again that what the Bush administration has done was DECEPTIVE, but not outright lying.


--------------------


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlined33p
Welcome to Violence

Registered: 07/12/03
Posts: 5,381
Loc: the shores of Tripoli
Last seen: 8 years, 2 months
Re: Moore hits back [Re: Edame]
    #1955238 - 09/26/03 07:13 PM (17 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

Edame said:
I can't see how that's anything like what Moore did.  MM visually, audiably, and noticably cut away to other footage between each quote. How is showing a picture of him with a doctored audio track seperated by a 1 decibel burst of sound even close to what he did?  I think your analogy is desperate to say the least.





Why is this at all different. Moore keep the speech rolling as if intact. I did the same. If you want for 1 frame when i had the words cut i could have put in a pic of a dog. The only reason why he cuts to the crowd is to hide the chaging positions of heston. You cant understand this. You are obviously sticking your head under the sand.

Quote:

Edame said:
And where did you get this information from?  What are they referring to when they say "YES" he called to 'set up' his filming?  Are they saying he told them in advance he wanted to open an account and film it (sounds perfectly reasonable to me)?  If not, what exactly were they referring to? 




like i said, call the bank my friend. Moore set up the scene weeks in advance. The fact is when you select the gun you must go thro backround checks and wait a while just like any normal gun store as stipulated by the law. I would admit this is as stupid as a drive thro liquer store but moore did intentionally distort the truth.

Quote:

Edame said:
Missile: An object or weapon that is fired, thrown, dropped, or otherwise projected at a target; a projectile.




Nigger: A stupid person.
This is what the webster dictionary i own says. But in todays society nigger has come to mean a racist term for blacks. Such as missle is labaled as a machine of war and death. Moore knew this and used the term missle to make the average viewer think they produce weapons. He did not lie but he did distort the truth = not oscar worthy.

Quote:

Edame said:
So by what you say, his claim was still factually correct that they ship them at night while the children sleep.




And saying Arabs are terrorists is also factually correct but it would make you think i mean all arabs. Again distorting the truth is not honest.

Quote:

Edame said:
Nice, I don't agree with the way you see things so you attack my character.   




That there was just a joke from a movie, sorry you didnt get it dumbass :wink:


--------------------
I'm a nihilist. Lets be friends.

bang bang


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Anonymous

Re: Moore hits back [Re: Phred]
    #1955279 - 09/26/03 07:25 PM (17 years, 10 months ago)

edame took that peice of shit film seriously even before he had moore's rebuttal to cling to. i wouldn't expect him to reexamine his thoughts on BFC any time soon, no matter how many sources and links you provide him with.

"For what a man had rather were true he more readily believes."


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineLearyfanS
It's the psychedelic movement!
Male User Gallery

Registered: 04/20/01
Posts: 32,621
Loc: High pride!
Last seen: 10 hours, 42 minutes
Re: Moore hits back [Re: silversoul7]
    #1955588 - 09/26/03 09:42 PM (17 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

That sword slices both ways -- if what Moore did wasn't "lying", then for sure what Bush and Blair and the rest said about intelligence reports re Iraq's capabilities most certainly wasn't lying.




I can't believe someone just compared making a deceptive movie and lying to take YOUR COUNTRY TO WAR.





--------------------
--------------------------------


Mp3 of the month:  Wendell Austin and The Country Swings- LSD



Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleEdame
gone

Registered: 01/14/03
Posts: 1,270
Loc: outta here
Re: Moore hits back [Re: Phred]
    #1955756 - 09/26/03 11:07 PM (17 years, 10 months ago)

If you don't want to read how it was done, I can't make you. Any of you.

I've read some of the links people have provided, I'm just not particularly convinced.

The fact is, that you cannot walk into that bank, open an account, and waltz right back out again with a gun in your hand.

And yet that's basically what Moore is still claiming. If you're claiming otherwise, please actually provide a link or quote instead of just telling me to go and look myself. I want to see what you've read that made you come to that conclusion.

The fact is, the Lockheed martin plant in the film doesn't make "missiles".

And yet Moore claims:
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."

The fact is, Moore didn't just do "selective editing" to cut down the length of a speech, selecting only the most interesting portions. He made up a fictional rant out of whole cloth which deliberately misrepresents Heston's points.

I think he did use selective editing to cut down the speech. Just because he cut it down doesn't mean it's not still factually correct. He's used the same techniques as many journalists and film-makers the world over.

The fact is, there are over a dozen more exposures of his dishonesty he chooses to ignore completely.

From what I've seen, most of these are nothing more than attempts at character assassination.

There have been links to sites posted in this forum before which illustrate in much greater detail these and other examples. If you choose not to investigate, so be it, I'm not going to post them all here again. Why bother? It doesn't matter to me who chooses to believe Moore's lies or even Moore's lies about his lies.

I have looked at some of them, and like I said, I wasn't particularly impressed. The links seem to be just thrown around like they're fact, I haven't seen a lot of discusision on the claims, and they certainly don't seem to have been picked up by any lawyers or Oscar judges.

I just find it ironic that when a hero of the Lefty-Libbie crowd does something so blatant, all the Lefty-Libbies rush to his defense, falling all over themselves to see who can come up with the most hair-splittingly slippery redefinition of the word "lie" so they can claim what Moore did wasn't really lying. The standards of Libbie "truth" vary from day to day and upon whom the lens of inquiry is focused, it seems.

Let me try something:
I just find it ironic that when a hero of the [right-wing] crowd does something so blatant, all the [righties] rush to his defense, falling all over themselves to see who can come up with the most hair-splittingly slippery redefinition of the word "lie" so they can claim what [Bush] did wasn't really lying. The standards of [right-wing] "truth" vary from day to day and upon whom the lens of inquiry is focused, it seems.

You're right, the sword does slice both ways, we can both make baseless assumptions.

One more thing, in a recent thread, which touched on a similar topic (the non-existant 9/11-Iraq link), you made this point:

Quote:

pinksharkmark said:
PsiloKitten writes:

But I do know that the average american does think that the President linked Saddam to 9/11.

I have never disputed that. The question is, why do they think that?

Clearly, many people in this forum are honestly convinced Bush's speechwriters and press officers and personal handlers carefully prepare for his prior memorization certain rote phrases and stock responses to potential questions; phrases which are specifically linguistically designed to somehow slide by the consciousness of the listener and implant an irresistable subliminal message. For all I know, Bush's handlers really do that kind of thing.

My point is that even if they do carefully craft these little linguistic nuggets, even if Bush successfully memorizes them and manages to repeat them flawlessly, the nuggets have no power over those who actually LISTEN -- and THINK about what they are listening to. They have no power over those who actually READ -- and THINK about what they are reading. The acquisition of knowledge is not a passive process. You don't learn by just keeping your eyes and ears open and lapsing into some kind of trance while images and sounds wash over you. You must actively engage the MIND as well.

As an aside, I must also point out again that even if these linguistic Trojan horses were the finest examples of subliminal conditioning ever devised, all it would have taken to completely disarm them is a single reporter asking a single, blunt, direct question -- with perhaps a few followups if the first answer was evasive or unclear. This is, of course, exactly what happened in the press conference described in your first post of the thread.

I find it tiresome to hear people complain they have been "brainwashed" and "deceived". Where is the personal responsibility of these complainers? The words they misinterpreted are a matter of public record and easily checked. I understood what was being said by the administration, as did others here in this forum. You seem to have a brain on your shoulders -- I'm sure you didn't believe Bush and Cheney et al had ever claimed Hussein was involved in 9-11 either. It may come as a surprise to you, but I can assure you that not all people listen and read as carefully as you do.




I generally agree with what you said here, so I'm puzzled as to why you don't apply similar logic to BFC. Where's the personal responsibility of the viewer? These sites go to great lengths to say 'here, look at what Moore is trying to lead you to believe' and 'look at how he tries to deceive you'. People raised similar points about Bush's speeches and quotes, and I think your above arguement worked well, so why not apply it here too? I sure as hell didn't watch it thinking it was some kind of higher truth (despite what mushmaster would like to imply).


Moore has made an explicit statement that his film is factually correct and that it's been checked by lawyers. If Moore has stated publicly that his film is factually correct, why has nobody come forward to sue him or take any kind of legal action? To do so and succeed (which many of these 'claims' make look easy) would be to publically ruin and discredit Moore for good, which seems to be the main aim of these sites. This would be the equivalent of your blunt, direct question example.

Given a choice between the film's creator making such a public statement, and the resounding silence of Lockheed's, Heston's and the NRA's lawyers, I'll give Moore the benefit of the doubt for now. I'm sure that'll come as no surprise to people with preconceived notions about my 'beliefs'.


--------------------
The above is an extract from my fictional novel, "The random postings of Edame".
:tongue:

In the beginning was the word. And man could not handle the word, and the hearing of the word, and he asked God to take away his ears so that he might live in peace without having to hear words which might upset his equinamity or corrupt the unblemished purity of his conscience.

And God, hearing this desperate plea from His creation, wrinkled His mighty brow for a moment and then leaned down toward man, beckoning that he should come close so as to hear all that was about to be revealed to him.

"Fuck you," He whispered, and frowned upon the pathetic supplicant before retreating to His heavens.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Invisiblesilversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
Re: Moore hits back [Re: Edame]
    #1955793 - 09/26/03 11:24 PM (17 years, 10 months ago)

^^^excellent post, Edame! :thumbup:


--------------------


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlined33p
Welcome to Violence

Registered: 07/12/03
Posts: 5,381
Loc: the shores of Tripoli
Last seen: 8 years, 2 months
Re: Moore hits back [Re: Edame]
    #1955825 - 09/26/03 11:41 PM (17 years, 10 months ago)

ask yourself this: Is ditorting the truth dishonest. I think it is, and when it is distorted it is no loner the truth therefore it is a lie.

Quote:

Edame said:
I've read some of the links people have provided, I'm just not particularly convinced.




and some people arnt convinced the holocaust happened either.

Quote:


And yet that's basically what Moore is still claiming. If you're claiming otherwise, please actually provide a link or quote instead of just telling me to go and look myself. I want to see what you've read that made you come to that conclusion.




This is the primary basis of your arguements. You ask for proof which cannot be given. Out of sheer curriousity i caled the bank beacuse at one point i bealived in moore and thought he was good guy. If you call and ask in ym case they politely said how moore had come in before and set it all up so he could walk in and walk out with a gun in other words it was staged. Now i cant provide you with a tape recording of the conversation so how about you try to call them. Ive misplaced the number as i called a while back when the movie was in theatres. But it cant be to hard to find.

Quote:


And yet Moore claims:
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."




The question hasent been in this case whether moore out right lied. But he still decieved the common viewer by his play on words. Both are equally wrong

Quote:


I think he did use selective editing to cut down the speech. Just because he cut it down doesn't mean it's not still factually correct. He's used the same techniques as many journalists and film-makers the world over.




When he cut in the middle of sentences and paragraphs to form new sentences that is not editing. If this were true editing we would have gandi saying "i eat babies" and scott ritter saying "i really did fuck that little girl." Now we couldnt have that now could we.

Quote:


From what I've seen, most of these are nothing more than attempts at character assassination.




I hardly see how demonstrating how he staged certain scenes and jumbled numbers is character assassination

Quote:


I have looked at some of them, and like I said, I wasn't particularly impressed. The links seem to be just thrown around like they're fact, I haven't seen a lot of discusision on the claims, and they certainly don't seem to have been picked up by any lawyers or Oscar judges.




In this world anything can be "looked over" or "forgotten". Hell if o.j. is innocent anything is possible.



--------------------
I'm a nihilist. Lets be friends.

bang bang


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OnlineBaby_Hitler
Errorist
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 25,509
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 5 minutes, 41 seconds
Re: Moore hits back [Re: Learyfan]
    #1955882 - 09/27/03 12:12 AM (17 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

I can't believe someone just compared making a deceptive movie and lying to take YOUR COUNTRY TO WAR. 




And that would be a relevant statement if he were to say that while making a case defending the war, but he's not.

We're talking about the movie now LF. :rolleyes:


--------------------
(•_•)
<) )~  ANTIFA
/ \
\(•_•)
( (>    SUPER
/ \
(•_•)
<) )>    SOLDIERS
  / \


Don't vibe my harsh, bro.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinedomite
Puppet
Male User Gallery
Registered: 04/12/03
Posts: 2,978
Loc: Who's askin'?
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
Re: Moore hits back [Re: Baby_Hitler]
    #1956084 - 09/27/03 01:33 AM (17 years, 10 months ago)

pinksharkmark, I know you said that you are annoyed at posting these links, but the only one I could find was the one that luvdemshrroms posted, And i didnt see a detailed discription of how the heston speech was edited on it, the way you discribed. Could you post a link to that site?


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Invisibleadrug

Registered: 02/04/03
Posts: 15,800
Re: Moore hits back [Re: Edame]
    #1956334 - 09/27/03 03:27 AM (17 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

Edame said:
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.




Now, I've never seen Bowling for Columbine, so I can't comment on it, but I was a bit shocked by this statistic. Anyone else care to comment?


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleEdame
gone

Registered: 01/14/03
Posts: 1,270
Loc: outta here
Re: Moore hits back [Re: d33p]
    #1956556 - 09/27/03 05:48 AM (17 years, 10 months ago)

ask yourself this: Is ditorting the truth dishonest. I think it is, and when it is distorted it is no loner the truth therefore it is a lie.


So lets follow your logic and take a quote from Bush (notice the ellipsis too):
You remember when [Secretary of State] Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons ...They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two...And we'll find more weapons as time goes on.

According to an official British investigation, the truth is that those trailers weren't illegal chemical weapons labs. Surely it's just the slightest bit dishonest to go making a claim like that before the facts are in? By your definition that would make Bush a liar.
But I've already mentioned before, I see a difference between a lie and a deception. I never claimed that Bush is a liar.

and some people arnt convinced the holocaust happened either.

Great, now you're lumping me with Holocaust deniers, keep up the character assassination. Perhaps you can find some more loathsome but unrelated topics to compare me to.

This is the primary basis of your arguements. You ask for proof which cannot be given. Out of sheer curriousity i caled the bank beacuse at one point i bealived in moore and thought he was good guy. If you call and ask in ym case they politely said how moore had come in before and set it all up so he could walk in and walk out with a gun in other words it was staged. Now i cant provide you with a tape recording of the conversation so how about you try to call them. Ive misplaced the number as i called a while back when the movie was in theatres. But it cant be to hard to find.

I'm starting to lose you here. You say that by asking for the links pinky has been reading, I'm asking for proof which cannot be given?
I'm not going to call the bank because I don't live in the US, and the onus is on you anyway to provide proof of your claims. Please forgive me if I don't just accept your word that you did in fact call them, and that they did tell you that Moore staged the scene. Did you speak to someone shown in the film? How do you know you didn't just a get a scripted response for Moore related enquiries? If it's so easy to call them, perhaps you can find a link with a statement from the bank (surely other people called too), saying that he staged the whole thing.

The question hasent been in this case whether moore out right lied. But he still decieved the common viewer by his play on words. Both are equally wrong

See the quote from pinky in my last post, if you're conceding that Moore's comments are factually correct (but deceptive) then it's not his fault if the viewer hasn't made a proper analysis.

When he cut in the middle of sentences and paragraphs to form new sentences that is not editing.

If he cut to other footage between each clip, than I'd call that editing myself. If he created a (slanderous) speech then why haven't the NRA sued him? They'd be perfectly entitled to.

If this were true editing we would have gandi saying "i eat babies" and scott ritter saying "i really did fuck that little girl." Now we couldnt have that now could we.

I really think you're taking these analogies a bit too far. The fact is that Moore (or anyone else for that matter) hasn't quoted Ghandi saying he eats babies or Ritter saying he fucks children. To try and draw a connection between Moore's quotes, and the horrible actions you've 'quoted' seems, well, a bit deceptive no?

I hardly see how demonstrating how he staged certain scenes and jumbled numbers is character assassination

I'm wondering if you've actually read Moore's comments at the beginning of this topic. If so, I guess we have a difference of opinion.

In this world anything can be "looked over" or "forgotten". Hell if o.j. is innocent anything is possible.

So what's your point? The NRA's lawyers just can't be bothered to publically humiliate a man you think is lying about them?

(Edit: Spelling & grammar)


--------------------
The above is an extract from my fictional novel, "The random postings of Edame".
:tongue:

In the beginning was the word. And man could not handle the word, and the hearing of the word, and he asked God to take away his ears so that he might live in peace without having to hear words which might upset his equinamity or corrupt the unblemished purity of his conscience.

And God, hearing this desperate plea from His creation, wrinkled His mighty brow for a moment and then leaned down toward man, beckoning that he should come close so as to hear all that was about to be revealed to him.

"Fuck you," He whispered, and frowned upon the pathetic supplicant before retreating to His heavens.


Edited by Edame (09/27/03 05:56 AM)


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Anonymous

Re: Moore hits back [Re: adrug]
    #1956888 - 09/27/03 12:07 PM (17 years, 10 months ago)

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.

you can find this, as well as exposure of more of moore's deceptions and fabrications, here.

6. International Comparisons. To pound home its point, Bowling flashes a dramatic count of gun homicides in various countries: Canada 165, Germany 381, Australia 65, Japan 39, US 11,127. Now that's raw numbers, not rates -- Here's why he doesn't talk rates.

Verifying the figures was difficult, since Moore does not give a year for them. A lot of Moore's numbers didn't check out for any period I could find. As a last effort at checking, I did a Google search for each number and the word "gun" or words "gun homicides" Many traced -- only back to webpages repeating Bowling's figures. Moore is the only one using these numbers.

Germany: Bowling says 381: 1995 figures put homicides at 1,476, about four times what Bowling claims, and gun homicides at 168, about half what it claims: it's either far too high or far too low.

Australia: Bowling says 65. This is very close, albeit picking the year to get the data desired. Between 1980-1995, firearm homicides varied from 64-123, although never exactly 65. In 2000, it was 64, which was proudly proclaimed as the lowest number in the country's history.

US: Bowling says 11,127. FBI figures put it a lot lower. They report gun homicides were 8,719 in 2001, 8,661 in 2000, 8,480 in 1999. (2001 UCR, p. 23). Here's the table:



[You can download the entire report, in .pdf format, by clickinghere ; look for pt. 2 at p.23.] To be utterly fair, this is a count of the 13,752 homicides for which police submitted supplemental data (including weapon used): the total homicide count was 15,980. But what weapon, if any, was used in the other homicide is unknown to us, and was unknown to Moore.
After an email tip, I finally found a way to compute precisely 11,127. Ignore the FBI, use Nat'l Center for Health Statistics figures. These are based on doctors' death certificates rather than police investigation.

Then -- to their gun homicide figures, add the figure for legally-justified homicides: self-defense and police use against criminals. Presto, you have exactly Moore's 11,127. I can see no other way for him to get it.

Since Moore appears to use police figures for the other countries, it's hardly a valid comparison. More to the point, it's misleading since it includes self-defense and police: when we talk of a gun homicide problem we hardly have in mind a woman defending against a rapist, or a cop taking out an armed robber.

Canada: Moore's number is correct for 1999, a low point, but he ignores some obvious differences .

Bias. I wanted to talk about fabrication, not about bias, but I've gotten emails asking why I didn't mention that Switzerland requires almost all adult males to have guns, but has a homicide rate lower than Great Britain, or that Japanese-Americans, with the same proximity to guns as other Americans, have homicide rates half that of Japan itself. Okay, they're mentioned, now back to our regularly scheduled program.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisiblePsiloKitten
Ganja Goddess

Registered: 02/13/99
Posts: 1,617
Re: Moore hits back [Re: Edame]
    #1956953 - 09/27/03 12:46 PM (17 years, 10 months ago)

Edame,

You rock! You have officially made my hero list. You have the patience of a saint!!

I just had to interject that.


--------------------


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineGernBlanston
unintended sideeffect
Male

Registered: 05/28/03
Posts: 842
Loc: OR
Last seen: 1 month, 17 days
Re: Moore hits back [Re: PsiloKitten]
    #1957039 - 09/27/03 01:45 PM (17 years, 10 months ago)

^^
Ditto.


--------------------
There is no flag large enough to cover the shame of killing innocent people.
  --  Howard Zinn


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlined33p
Welcome to Violence

Registered: 07/12/03
Posts: 5,381
Loc: the shores of Tripoli
Last seen: 8 years, 2 months
Re: Moore hits back [Re: Edame]
    #1958518 - 09/28/03 12:47 AM (17 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

Edame said:
So lets follow your logic and take a quote from Bush (notice the ellipsis too):
You remember when [Secretary of State] Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons ...They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two...And we'll find more weapons as time goes on.

According to an official British investigation, the truth is that those trailers weren't illegal chemical weapons labs. Surely it's just the slightest bit dishonest to go making a claim like that before the facts are in? By your definition that would make Bush a liar.
But I've already mentioned before, I see a difference between a lie and a deception. I never claimed that Bush is a liar.




So you lump me as a bush supporter. Keep this topic on track.

Quote:


Great, now you're lumping me with Holocaust deniers, keep up the character assassination. Perhaps you can find some more loathsome but unrelated topics to compare me to.




I didnt lump you into anything. I was merely saying how some people will never accept anything. And that is not a character assassination cuz you read to much into thing. If i said your nazi now that would character assassination.

Quote:


I'm starting to lose you here. You say that by asking for the links pinky has been reading, I'm asking for proof which cannot be given?
I'm not going to call the bank because I don't live in the US, and the onus is on you anyway to provide proof of your claims. Please forgive me if I don't just accept your word that you did in fact call them, and that they did tell you that Moore staged the scene. Did you speak to someone shown in the film? How do you know you didn't just a get a scripted response for Moore related enquiries? If it's so easy to call them, perhaps you can find a link with a statement from the bank (surely other people called too), saying that he staged the whole thing.




If i were to show you a webiste with a quote you would probably say it is fake your it doesnt convince you. Short of sending you a tape recording you probably wouldnt be satisfied. And regaurdless do you not understand american gun laws. You cannot walk into a bank set up and account and walk out with a gun. That is the most ludacris thing ive heard.

Quote:


See the quote from pinky in my last post, if you're conceding that Moore's comments are factually correct (but deceptive) then it's not his fault if the viewer hasn't made a proper analysis.




If he haddnt recieved an oscar then i wouldnt care cuz his movie is a good piece of entertainment. But something that intentionaly distorts the truth is not academy quality. I dont hate moore i just dont think he should have recieved the oscar.

Quote:


If he cut to other footage between each clip, than I'd call that editing myself. If he created a (slanderous) speech then why haven't the NRA sued him? They'd be perfectly entitled to.




The entire world is made up of endless loopholes. Riding through every one of them to further your own agenda isnt right. If i were the judge in a case between the NRA and moore i would award the NRA beacuse moore held the speech in one piece and only cut the video not the not noticibly, but that would be due to common sense. And we all know common sense has no place in americas jusitce system.

Quote:


I really think you're taking these analogies a bit too far. The fact is that Moore (or anyone else for that matter) hasn't quoted Ghandi saying he eats babies or Ritter saying he fucks children. To try and draw a connection between Moore's quotes, and the horrible actions you've 'quoted' seems, well, a bit deceptive no?




When interviewing Heston moore cuts up the interview to make it look like Heston is a racist. Heston fought side by side with Martin luther king jr. Moore made it seem like Heston said blacks were the problem with crime rates when he was realy saying racism was.

Quote:


I'm wondering if you've actually read Moore's comments at the beginning of this topic. If so, I guess we have a difference of opinion.




Yes moore said most everyone said he was a fat fuck or lazy well he didnt quote anyone noteworthy. I wouldnt be suprised if he made that up to make himself the victim.

Quote:


So what's your point? The NRA's lawyers just can't be bothered to publically humiliate a man you think is lying about them?




Again as i dont know their lawyer i dont know what is happening since moore is actually intelligent i wouldnt be susprised if he made his movie all legal by some means.



--------------------
I'm a nihilist. Lets be friends.

bang bang


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineGernBlanston
unintended sideeffect
Male

Registered: 05/28/03
Posts: 842
Loc: OR
Last seen: 1 month, 17 days
Re: Moore hits back [Re: d33p]
    #1958664 - 09/28/03 02:07 AM (17 years, 10 months ago)

Again as i dont know their lawyer i dont know what is happening since moore is actually intelligent i wouldnt be susprised if he made his movie all legal by some means.

Yah, like for example... he, uh, maybe... didn't actually lie, liable, or slander anyone in the movie?? That'd make it "legal by some means", wouldn't it?

Just a thought.


--------------------
There is no flag large enough to cover the shame of killing innocent people.
  --  Howard Zinn


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Invisibleadrug

Registered: 02/04/03
Posts: 15,800
Re: Moore hits back [Re: d33p]
    #1958823 - 09/28/03 03:40 AM (17 years, 10 months ago)

*ludicrous


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleEdame
gone

Registered: 01/14/03
Posts: 1,270
Loc: outta here
Re: Moore hits back [Re: d33p]
    #1959064 - 09/28/03 06:23 AM (17 years, 10 months ago)

So you lump me as a bush supporter. Keep this topic on track.

It is on topic. One of the central themes in this thread is the comparison of Bush's 'lies' (with regards to the war) and Moore's 'lies' (regarding his film) depending on which side of the political spectrum you tend to lean towards.
I apologise if I implied that you agree with Bush's deceptions.

I didnt lump you into anything. I was merely saying how some people will never accept anything. And that is not a character assassination cuz you read to much into thing. If i said your nazi now that would character assassination.

A pretty poor choice for comparison then don't you think? I'm talking about not being convinced by a few pages on the internet that say Moore's film is a pack of lies. You then try to draw a comparison to people who talk about oven sizes and smoke colours to argue that 6 million Jews weren't really systematically slaughtered. What with non-quotes about baby eating and child fucking, you seem to have a penchant for using extreme examples to make your point.

If i were to show you a webiste with a quote you would probably say it is fake your it doesnt convince you. Short of sending you a tape recording you probably wouldnt be satisfied.

So now it's easier to make assumptions about what I will and won't do rather than argue your point?
How do you know what I'm going to do if you don't try?

And regaurdless do you not understand american gun laws.

What does this have to do with American gun laws? I'm not arguing for or against gun control laws if that's what you're getting at.

You cannot walk into a bank set up and account and walk out with a gun. That is the most ludacris thing ive heard.

And yet that's exactly what Moore claims he did, and he filmed it, and in his response to his critics (that I started this topic with) he explains it in more detail.

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).


If he haddnt recieved an oscar then i wouldnt care cuz his movie is a good piece of entertainment. But something that intentionaly distorts the truth is not academy quality. I dont hate moore i just dont think he should have recieved the oscar.

Yet Moore has made the claim that his film is factually correct. If someone can prove that it isn't, then I don't see why they shouldn't take away the award, but they haven't.

The entire world is made up of endless loopholes. Riding through every one of them to further your own agenda isnt right. If i were the judge in a case between the NRA and moore i would award the NRA beacuse moore held the speech in one piece and only cut the video not the not noticibly, but that would be due to common sense. And we all know common sense has no place in americas jusitce system.

How do you feel about the news organisations then (they use the same techniques)? Do think they should show every speech and news conference in full excruciating detail just so nobody gets the wrong impression from their 'soundbites'? And funnily enough, you're not a judge, and nobody has taken Moore to court.

When interviewing Heston moore cuts up the interview to make it look like Heston is a racist.

Examples? From memory, it looked like one take for the whole interview with him.

Heston fought side by side with Martin luther king jr. Moore made it seem like Heston said blacks were the problem with crime rates when he was realy saying racism was.

Again, where's the viewer responsibility? As far as I remember it was Heston who made himself look bad, I don't recall him saying anything about black people.

Yes moore said most everyone said he was a fat fuck or lazy well he didnt quote anyone noteworthy. I wouldnt be suprised if he made that up to make himself the victim.

Why does it have to have been a noteworthy person calling him that. He says he's seen numerous web sites where he's been called names. Just take a look at the previous BFC thread on this forum to get an idea.

Again as i dont know their lawyer i dont know what is happening since moore is actually intelligent i wouldnt be susprised if he made his movie all legal by some means.

Funnily enough, that's exactly what he seems to be claiming.


--------------------
The above is an extract from my fictional novel, "The random postings of Edame".
:tongue:

In the beginning was the word. And man could not handle the word, and the hearing of the word, and he asked God to take away his ears so that he might live in peace without having to hear words which might upset his equinamity or corrupt the unblemished purity of his conscience.

And God, hearing this desperate plea from His creation, wrinkled His mighty brow for a moment and then leaned down toward man, beckoning that he should come close so as to hear all that was about to be revealed to him.

"Fuck you," He whispered, and frowned upon the pathetic supplicant before retreating to His heavens.


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlined33p
Welcome to Violence

Registered: 07/12/03
Posts: 5,381
Loc: the shores of Tripoli
Last seen: 8 years, 2 months
Re: Moore hits back [Re: Edame]
    #1960384 - 09/28/03 07:09 PM (17 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

Edame said:
A pretty poor choice for comparison then don't you think? I'm talking about not being convinced by a few pages on the internet that say Moore's film is a pack of lies. You then try to draw a comparison to people who talk about oven sizes and smoke colours to argue that 6 million Jews weren't really systematically slaughtered. What with non-quotes about baby eating and child fucking, you seem to have a penchant for using extreme examples to make your point.




You dont seem to understand that i am not comparing the two things that happened for whatever reason. Im just saying how some people tend to lean toward personal biases rather than fact.

Quote:


Yet Moore has made the claim that his film is factually correct. If someone can prove that it isn't, then I don't see why they shouldn't take away the award, but they haven't.




Out lets look at some of his points in the movie:

Bowling splices together two different election ads one run by the Bush campaign (featuring a revolving door, and not even mentioning Horton) and another run by an independent expenditure campaign (naming Horton, and showing footage from which it can be seen that he is black). At the end, the ad ala' Moore has the customary note that it was paid for by the Bush-Quayle campaign. Moore intones "whether you're a psychotic killer or running for president of the United States, the one thing you can always count on is white America's fear of the black man." There is nothing to reveal that most of the ad just seen (and all of it that was relevant to Moore's claim) was not the Bush-Quayle ad, which didn't even name Horton.

also apparently unsatisfied with splicing the ads, Bowling's editors added a subtitle "Willie Horton released. Then kills again."

Ben Fitz also noted that Bowling's editors didn't bother to research the events before doctoring the ads. Horton's second arrest was not for murder. The second set of charges were aggravated assault and rape.

Was that the truth, did he just not have enough camera time to show both ads in their whole. I think not.


Weeping children outside Columbine;

Cut to Charlton Heston holding a musket and proclaiming "I have only five words for you: 'from my cold, dead, hands'";

Cut to billboard advertising the meeting, while Moore intones "Just ten days after the Columbine killings, despite the pleas of a community in mourning, Charlton Heston came to Denver and held a large pro-gun rally for the National Rifle Association;"


What Moore seems to forget to mention is that by corporate law that meeting was required to occur, but he left that part out to shorten the movie, right?

Moore makes the claim that "Just as he did after the Columbine shooting, Charlton Heston showed up in Flint, to have a big pro-gun rally."

Heston's speech was given at a "get out the vote" rally in Flint, which was held when elections rolled by some eight months after the shooting. Moore himself had been hosting rallies for Green Party candidate Nader in Flint a few weeks before.

Yep real honest.

Even the Canadian government is jumping in. Bowling shows Moore casually buying ammunition at an Ontario Walmart. He asks us to "look at what I, a foreign citizen, was able to do at a local Canadian Wal-Mart." He buys several boxes of ammunition without a question being raised. "That's right. I could buy as much ammunition as I wanted, in Canada."

Canadian officials have pointed out that the buy is faked or illegal: Canadian law has since, 1998, required ammunition buyers to present proper identification. Since Jan. 1, 2001, it has required non-Canadians to present a firearms borrowing or importation license, too. (Bowling appears to have been filmed in mid and late 2001).


Woops, what about that one.

Quote:

How do you feel about the news organisations then (they use the same techniques)? Do think they should show every speech and news conference in full excruciating detail just so nobody gets the wrong impression from their 'soundbites'? And funnily enough, you're not a judge, and nobody has taken Moore to court.




Cutting speeches down is fine but intentionally taking things out of context is dishonest.

Quote:


Examples? From memory, it looked like one take for the whole interview with him.




Watch closely and you'll see a clock on the wall near Moore's head. When it's first seen, the time is about 5:47. When Heston finally walks out, it reads about 6:10. That's 23 minutes. I clocked the Heston interview in Bowling at 5 1/4 minutes.


--------------------
I'm a nihilist. Lets be friends.

bang bang


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleEdame
gone

Registered: 01/14/03
Posts: 1,270
Loc: outta here
Re: Moore hits back [Re: d33p]
    #1962698 - 09/29/03 02:43 PM (17 years, 10 months ago)

You dont seem to understand that i am not comparing the two things that happened for whatever reason. Im just saying how some people tend to lean toward personal biases rather than fact.

And I guess you're the one with all the facts right?

Bowling splices together two different election ads one run by the Bush campaign (featuring a revolving door, and not even mentioning Horton) and another run by an independent expenditure campaign (naming Horton, and showing footage from which it can be seen that he is black). At the end, the ad ala' Moore has the customary note that it was paid for by the Bush-Quayle campaign. Moore intones "whether you're a psychotic killer or running for president of the United States, the one thing you can always count on is white America's fear of the black man." There is nothing to reveal that most of the ad just seen (and all of it that was relevant to Moore's claim) was not the Bush-Quayle ad, which didn't even name Horton.


I'm trying to get hold of the film again to take a look at this. Perhaps in the meantime you can actually point to a source that shows that the clips are from different campaigns.

also apparently unsatisfied with splicing the ads, Bowling's editors added a subtitle "Willie Horton released. Then kills again."

Ben Fitz also noted that Bowling's editors didn't bother to research the events before doctoring the ads. Horton's second arrest was not for murder. The second set of charges were aggravated assault and rape.


Again, I wonder whether you actually read Moore's article at the beginning of this post. In it he admits (my emphasis):

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 fianc?, 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!).

So he's publically admitted to a typo, and taken the steps to correct it for the home release of his film. That seems to me like a pretty honest thing to do.

What Moore seems to forget to mention is that by corporate law that meeting was required to occur, but he left that part out to shorten the movie, right?

So which part of "Just ten days after the Columbine killings, despite the pleas of a community in mourning, Charlton Heston came to Denver and held a large pro-gun rally for the National Rifle Association;" is a lie exactly? Regardless of whether it was required of Heston to go or not, what is incorrect about Moore's statement?

Moore makes the claim that "Just as he did after the Columbine shooting, Charlton Heston showed up in Flint, to have a big pro-gun rally."

Heston's speech was given at a "get out the vote" rally in Flint, which was held when elections rolled by some eight months after the shooting. Moore himself had been hosting rallies for Green Party candidate Nader in Flint a few weeks before.


You seem to to contradicting yourself here. The shootings happened on April 20th 1999, the NRA convention started on April 30th (Edit: corrected typo) the same year ("Just ten days after the Columbine killings..."), and Heston gave this speech at that convention, hardly 8 months later. What I think you're referring to is Heston's 'from my cold dead hands' quote, which is not a speech, just a quote. If you'd bothered to read the post at the start of this thread, you would see what Moore wrote about this:

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?

Even the Canadian government is jumping in. Bowling shows Moore casually buying ammunition at an Ontario Walmart. He asks us to "look at what I, a foreign citizen, was able to do at a local Canadian Wal-Mart." He buys several boxes of ammunition without a question being raised. "That's right. I could buy as much ammunition as I wanted, in Canada."

Canadian officials have pointed out that the buy is faked or illegal: Canadian law has since, 1998, required ammunition buyers to present proper identification. Since Jan. 1, 2001, it has required non-Canadians to present a firearms borrowing or importation license, too. (Bowling appears to have been filmed in mid and late 2001).


I checked out the link from the page (I'm assuming) you copied this from, and nowhere does any official say that the buy "is either faked or illegal". It says that they asked Moore for clarification on whether he used ID or not (and he's a card-carrying member of the NRA don't forget). Who's using misleading info now?

Even if that is the case, again, what is incorrect about about "look at what I, a foreign citizen, was able to do at a local Canadian Wal-Mart." and "That's right. I could buy as much ammunition as I wanted, in Canada."? He didn't claim he could buy ammo without a license did he?

Cutting speeches down is fine but intentionally taking things out of context is dishonest.

He did cut the speech down though. Again, where is the viewer responsibility? I've read the complete Heston speech and it still makes him sound arrogant to me, edited or not.

Watch closely and you'll see a clock on the wall near Moore's head. When it's first seen, the time is about 5:47. When Heston finally walks out, it reads about 6:10. That's 23 minutes. I clocked the Heston interview in Bowling at 5 1/4 minutes.

When I get hold of the film again, I'll be sure to look. The page I'm assuming you got that info from doesn't have any screen captures to verify that claim anyway (even though they have other images from the film).


--------------------
The above is an extract from my fictional novel, "The random postings of Edame".
:tongue:

In the beginning was the word. And man could not handle the word, and the hearing of the word, and he asked God to take away his ears so that he might live in peace without having to hear words which might upset his equinamity or corrupt the unblemished purity of his conscience.

And God, hearing this desperate plea from His creation, wrinkled His mighty brow for a moment and then leaned down toward man, beckoning that he should come close so as to hear all that was about to be revealed to him.

"Fuck you," He whispered, and frowned upon the pathetic supplicant before retreating to His heavens.


Edited by Edame (09/29/03 05:29 PM)


Post Extras: Filter  Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: North Spore Bulk Substrate   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder, Kratom Powder for Sale, Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Bridgetown Botanicals CBD Edibles   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale, Red Vein Kratom


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Bowling for Columbine
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )
ChuangTzu 6,454 109 12/30/02 08:58 PM
by Ellis Dee
* 10 Reasons Bush wants to ban Moore film
( 1 2 3 4 all )
LearyfanS 7,500 60 06/02/04 01:15 PM
by Vvellum
* Michael Moore's DWMC - a review
( 1 2 all )
Sclorch 4,678 34 01/16/04 07:08 PM
by d33p
* Academy Awards Anti-War Message from Michael Moore
( 1 2 3 all )
mjshroomer 3,077 57 03/24/03 02:59 PM
by mjshroomer
* 'Fahrenheit 9/11' a No. 1 Hit Across America fft2 805 13 06/29/04 02:22 AM
by Swami
* Michael Moore Owned Halliburton, Defense Stocks Luddite 1,476 14 12/29/16 11:11 AM
by hostileuniverse
* Bowling For Columbine - Lying with the help of the Media
( 1 2 3 4 ... 10 11 all )
lysergic 10,004 211 09/16/03 11:01 AM
by Zildjian
* Disney has blocked Micheal Moore's new film
( 1 2 all )
carbonhoots 2,276 39 06/01/04 09:40 PM
by Learyfan

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
4,798 topic views. 1 members, 1 guests and 0 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Print Topic | ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2021 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.042 seconds spending 0.008 seconds on 17 queries.