Home | Community | Message Board

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

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4  [ show all ]
InvisibleEdame
gone

Registered: 01/14/03
Posts: 1,270
Loc: outta here
Moore hits back
    #1951242 - 09/25/03 03:46 PM (18 years, 1 day ago)

There's no date for this article (but the title seems to imply it's quite new), so apologies if it's been posted previously, but I thought I'd post it seeing as the last thread provoked so much discussion. I'm going to post it in it's entirety because I thought he made some good points, and echoed some that I made myself in the last thread.

Quote:

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 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!).

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"

PS. From now on, I will deal with all wacko attackos on this page. If you hear something about me that doesn't sound quite right, check in here.




--------------------
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.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineDogomush
Barbless Aryan

Registered: 10/05/02
Posts: 1,286
Loc: The Canadian west coast
Last seen: 16 years, 6 months
Re: Moore hits back [Re: Edame]
    #1951271 - 09/25/03 04:01 PM (18 years, 1 day ago)

moore rocks.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinelysergic
Mycophile!
Registered: 06/09/03
Posts: 691
Last seen: 17 years, 9 months
Re: Moore hits back [Re: Dogomush]
    #1951283 - 09/25/03 04:04 PM (18 years, 1 day ago)

What a fat lying hebe. If a liar says that his lies are true, hes just lying more.


--------------------
In response to an attack killing 15 American Servicemen
PsiloKitten said:
Just give em a little more time, the iraqis are making great progress. And this is unorganized. Wait till they get organized.


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

Registered: 04/20/01
Posts: 32,703
Loc: High pride!
Last seen: 1 day, 5 minutes
Re: Moore hits back [Re: Edame]
    #1951299 - 09/25/03 04:09 PM (18 years, 1 day ago)

Moore rules.





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


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



Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinelysergic
Mycophile!
Registered: 06/09/03
Posts: 691
Last seen: 17 years, 9 months
Re: Moore hits back [Re: Learyfan]
    #1951311 - 09/25/03 04:14 PM (18 years, 1 day ago)

It's interesting how many white kids suppot a guy who wrote about about stupid white men. Thats right, hate your own kind, support everyoen else. sounds.... er...... logical?


--------------------
In response to an attack killing 15 American Servicemen
PsiloKitten said:
Just give em a little more time, the iraqis are making great progress. And this is unorganized. Wait till they get organized.


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: lysergic]
    #1951492 - 09/25/03 05:12 PM (18 years, 1 day ago)

It's always colour with you isn't it? Get over it already.


--------------------
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.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflinePhluck
Carpal Tunnel
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/11/99
Posts: 11,394
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 1 year, 4 months
Re: Moore hits back [Re: lysergic]
    #1951503 - 09/25/03 05:18 PM (18 years, 1 day ago)

"It's interesting how many white kids suppot a guy who wrote about about stupid white men. Thats right, hate your own kind, support everyoen else. sounds.... er...... logical? "

If you had actually read the book, you'd know it's not an anti-white diatribe. His point was that the United States is run primarily by "stupid white men". Not that all white men are stupid or anything ridiculous like that. Saying that Moore is anti-white doesn't make any sense, it's not only inaccurate, it's irrelevant.


--------------------
"I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson
http://phluck.is-after.us


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleAutonomous
MysteriousStranger

Registered: 05/10/02
Posts: 901
Loc: U.S.S.A.
Re: Moore hits back [Re: Phluck]
    #1951512 - 09/25/03 05:20 PM (18 years, 1 day ago)

Quote:

Phluck said:
Saying that Moore is anti-white doesn't make any sense, it's not only inaccurate, it's irrelevant.



What is relevant is that Moore is anti-freedom and pro-government empowerment.


--------------------
"In religion and politics people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination."
-- Mark Twain


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

Registered: 04/20/01
Posts: 32,703
Loc: High pride!
Last seen: 1 day, 5 minutes
Re: Moore hits back [Re: Autonomous]
    #1951655 - 09/25/03 05:58 PM (18 years, 1 day ago)

He's not pro-government empowerment. Noone gives it to "the man" harder than Moore does.




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


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



Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleAutonomous
MysteriousStranger

Registered: 05/10/02
Posts: 901
Loc: U.S.S.A.
Re: Moore hits back [Re: Learyfan]
    #1951685 - 09/25/03 06:06 PM (18 years, 1 day ago)

I call gun control pro-government empowerment, for it takes away tools of self defense from the citizens. With all the bad things that the state has done in the past, it is foolish to trust it further. But politics is generally not about what is wise or what is right, it is about some people advancing THEIR agenda, what THEY think is the best way for others to live and forcing their fellow man to abide by it via the coercive mechanism of the state.


--------------------
"In religion and politics people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination."
-- Mark Twain


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

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 25,806
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 5 hours, 38 minutes
Re: Moore hits back [Re: Learyfan]
    #1951689 - 09/25/03 06:07 PM (18 years, 1 day ago)

Quote:

Learyfan said:
He's not pro-government empowerment. Noone gives it to "the man" harder than Moore does.








On a silver platter you mean?


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


Don't vibe my harsh, bro.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleJonnyOnTheSpot
Sober Surfer
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/27/02
Posts: 11,527
Loc: North Carolina
Re: Moore hits back [Re: Autonomous]
    #1951716 - 09/25/03 06:22 PM (18 years, 1 day ago)

"I call gun control pro-government empowerment, for it takes away tools of self defense from the citizens. With all the bad things that the state has done in the past, it is foolish to trust it further. But politics is generally not about what is wise or what is right, it is about some people advancing THEIR agenda, what THEY think is the best way for others to live and forcing their fellow man to abide by it via the coercive mechanism of the state."


aren't you being a little hypocritical? aren't you just putting negative labels like "anti-freedom" and "pro-government empowerment" on political views that oppose yours so that that you can further your own political agenda which is making moore look bad and making guns appear patriotic?



--------------------
Religion is for people who are afraid of going to Hell; spirituality is for those who have been there.


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: lysergic]
    #1951752 - 09/25/03 06:33 PM (18 years, 1 day ago)

Quote:

lysergic said:
What a fat lying hebe. If a liar says that his lies are true, hes just lying more.



Prove it. Debunk the claims of this article if you're so certain he's lying.


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


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleAutonomous
MysteriousStranger

Registered: 05/10/02
Posts: 901
Loc: U.S.S.A.
Re: Moore hits back [Re: JonnyOnTheSpot]
    #1952015 - 09/25/03 08:01 PM (18 years, 1 day ago)

Quote:

JonnyOnTheSpot said:
aren't you being a little hypocritical?



No, not at all. I am being consistent, I have expressed no desire to initiate force against my fellow man or to utilize the coercive mechanism of the state for an agenda. If I was pro-gun control, that would make me a hypocrite. Please tell me why mistrust of the state should be suspended when it comes to gun control.

Quote:

aren't you just putting negative labels like "anti-freedom" and "pro-government empowerment" on political views that oppose yours so that that you can further your own political agenda which is making moore look bad and making guns appear patriotic?



No, I'm just telling the truth. If the truth appears as 'putting negative labels' on concepts to you, then perhaps you need to re-examine your political premises

Why don't you LOGICALLY tell me how limiting someone's freedom with gun control is not anti-freedom?

Why don't you tell me how giving the government more power to confiscate peaceful citizens' property is not "pro-government empowerment?"

Please LOGICALLY explain to me how increasing government power would not be increasing government power.

Moore does not need my help to look bad. He is an irrational fear monger.

What makes you think that I am trying to make guns appear patriotic? Is it because I value freedom over false promises of security? Would you say the same thing if we were discussing freedom of religion? Would you say the same thing if we were discussing freedom of speech? Would you say the same thing if we were discussing freedom to use the drugs of your choice? Would you say the same thing if we were discussing sexual freedom including the freedom of prostitution? Would you say the same thing if we were discussing the freedom to keep your own money so you wouldn't be forced to support the promotion of U.S. corporations overseas? Would you say the same thing if we were discussing the freedom to keep your own money so you wouldn't be forced to support dictatorial regimes in foreign countries? For on all these issues and more, I come down on the side of freedom. If that appears patriotic, then I stand guilty as charged.


--------------------
"In religion and politics people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination."
-- Mark Twain


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Invisiblewhiterasta
Day careobserver
 User Gallery
Registered: 04/09/02
Posts: 1,780
Loc: Oregon
Re: Moore hits back [Re: lysergic]
    #1952091 - 09/25/03 08:28 PM (18 years, 1 day ago)

Quote:

What a fat lying hebe. If a liar says that his lies are true, hes just lying more.
 



Hebe? you mean a hebrew? He's not hebrew.Kike is the more appropriate form of repudiation and anti-semitism should you care to educate your trailer trash honkey ass bullshit excuse for a brain.
Oh and rotfalmao about the lying liars, suck it up white boy we be fuckin you out of existance with our swarthy good looks.Nothin' a plain white wrapper likes better than a tan on a man.See ya lysergic you cute lil endangered subspecies you.

PS I apologize to others but racism is no longer tolerated and will be spanked from the practitioners quickly and effectively.
WR:rasta: 


--------------------
To old for this place


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinemonoamine
umask 077(nonefor you)

Registered: 09/07/02
Posts: 3,095
Loc: Jacksonville,FL
Last seen: 15 years, 11 months
Re: Moore hits back [Re: Edame]
    #1952248 - 09/25/03 09:24 PM (18 years, 1 day ago)

First of all,I don't agree with everything Moore says in Bowling For Columbine and I'm not too familar with his other work,but I knew most of the shit thrown at Moore was just that-shit.I was actually going to place a rebuttal of the attacks against Bowling For Columbine,but I didn't feel like writing a nine page paper that I would have to back up with sources that I didn't have the time to find.

If you go to just about any anti Moore website,90% of the time it's just repeated ad hominem attacks like "Moore is so fat" from NRA members. I don't even think most of his critics even bothered to watch the movie,but just launched hear-say at him.

That said,some of the things in the movie are somewhat misleading,but they are opinions ,Moore did not lie or make up anything. So the people that claimed he didn't deserve to get documentary awards because he made it up are full of shit.

Like one thing in the movie was when Moore went to a plane at a military base and he said the plack proudly read that it was used to kill people on Christmas.It actually read something like "This plane was used on bombing runs on Christmas eve in Vietnam". While I think the way he stated it was misleading (he doesn't cover this in that article),the plane used in that particular mission caused a huge amount of civilian casualties.

Moore is far from perfect,but is not an evil lyer like the right make him out to be. And contrary to what many people claim,it was not soley an anti gun movie.His main point was that this country is full of hysteria.

You Moore bashers would actually get a lot more credibility if most of you actually watched the movie.I'll make a deal,I'll read an Ann Coulter (sp?) book if a prominent righty (Luv,Shakta,Wingnut,Lysergic,etc.) watches Bowling For Columbine.


--------------------
People think that if you just say the word "hallucinations" it explains everything you want it to explain and eventually whatever it is you can't explain will just go away.It's just a word,it doesn't explain anything...
Douglas Adams


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: monoamine]
    #1952266 - 09/25/03 09:30 PM (18 years, 1 day ago)

Quote:

I'll make a deal,I'll read an Ann Coulter (sp?) book if a prominent righty (Luv,Shakta,Wingnut,Lysergic,etc.) watches Bowling For Columbine.



If one of them actually does bother to watch it, then I pity you.


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


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinemonoamine
umask 077(nonefor you)

Registered: 09/07/02
Posts: 3,095
Loc: Jacksonville,FL
Last seen: 15 years, 11 months
Re: Moore hits back [Re: silversoul7]
    #1952317 - 09/25/03 09:40 PM (18 years, 1 day ago)

I figure that's more than fair. They would have to watch a two hour movie which they can rent for $5 or so,while I would have to read a five hundred page book that would take a week and costs like $15.


--------------------
People think that if you just say the word "hallucinations" it explains everything you want it to explain and eventually whatever it is you can't explain will just go away.It's just a word,it doesn't explain anything...
Douglas Adams


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: monoamine]
    #1952336 - 09/25/03 09:45 PM (18 years, 1 day ago)

I know. That's why I pity you. It's hard enough for me to get motivated to read any book, especially Ann Coulter.


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


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


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

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 25,806
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 5 hours, 38 minutes
Re: Moore hits back [Re: monoamine]
    #1952386 - 09/25/03 10:02 PM (18 years, 1 day ago)

Is it ok if I download it and don't pay?


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


Don't vibe my harsh, bro.


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Offlinemonoamine
umask 077(nonefor you)

Registered: 09/07/02
Posts: 3,095
Loc: Jacksonville,FL
Last seen: 15 years, 11 months
Re: Moore hits back [Re: Baby_Hitler]
    #1952392 - 09/25/03 10:04 PM (18 years, 1 day ago)

Contrary to your screen name,I don't see you as one of the "righties" really.

I don't care how they get it as long as they watch it.


--------------------
People think that if you just say the word "hallucinations" it explains everything you want it to explain and eventually whatever it is you can't explain will just go away.It's just a word,it doesn't explain anything...
Douglas Adams


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

Re: Moore hits back [Re: Edame]
    #1952430 - 09/25/03 10:18 PM (18 years, 1 day ago)

:lol:


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]
    #1952788 - 09/26/03 12:27 AM (18 years, 1 day ago)

Micheal Moore does rock. He is a good man. He is an honest man. People who cant even look at their president with skepticism but go so far as to be racist scum .. wow.

As for Autonomous.... Have you seen the movie? Moore is not anti gun.

Period.

He makes the point that he is a member of the NRA. That Canada has more guns per capita then america does and they are perfectly civil. If you look at the message of this film Moore never comes off as antigun, even in his focus with the NRA, he is deconstructing violence and the American psyche. Not their gun laws.

Boo. Hiss. I would have expected that you had actually watched the movie if you were going to brand the man.


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
InvisibleAutonomous
MysteriousStranger

Registered: 05/10/02
Posts: 901
Loc: U.S.S.A.
Re: Moore hits back [Re: PsiloKitten]
    #1952930 - 09/26/03 01:22 AM (18 years, 1 day ago)

Quote:

PsiloKitten said:
Moore is not anti gun.



Did I state that he is 'anti-gun?' So what if he's a member of the NRA? Did you know there are arsonists who work as firefighters? Did you know that there are cops who are thieves? The bottom line is that he is promoting more gun control laws such as with this...
"Collectively, as Americans, we support gun control," said Mr. Moore. "The majority of Americans want to see this insanity ended. And yet a small but very vocal group has Congress constantly afraid to do the right thing. I hope you'll see in the film tonight that, when you pull back the curtain on the big bad Wizard of Oz called the NRA, that there's nothing to be afraid of."


--------------------
"In religion and politics people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination."
-- Mark Twain


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineSquattingMarmot
Inquiring Mind
Registered: 08/19/03
Posts: 418
Last seen: 7 years, 3 months
Re: Moore hits back [Re: Autonomous]
    #1953031 - 09/26/03 01:57 AM (18 years, 1 day ago)

I dunno Auto.. I tend to agree with kitten about this one. Bowling for Columbine is not anti-gun. While you have pointed out that Moore supports gun-control, in the movie I believe he placed the blame with people, not with the guns.


--------------------
"In the United States anybody can be president. Thats the problem."

"The gray-haired douche bag, Barbara Bush, has a slogan: "Encourage your child to read every day." What she should be is encouraging children to question what they read every day."

- George Carlin


Edited by SquattingMarmot (09/26/03 02:07 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Invisibleafoaf
CEO DBK?
 User Gallery

Registered: 11/08/02
Posts: 32,665
Loc: Ripple's Heart
Re: Moore hits back [Re: SquattingMarmot]
    #1953867 - 09/26/03 11:11 AM (18 years, 20 hours ago)

regardless of the technicalities...the movie was a big
win for the gun control lobby.

average americans are only so critical and can remember
so much after reading a book or watching a television show
or film...

guns bad....gun control laws good.

technically Bush never said 'they gonna come nuke us
tommorrow', but everyone in the country seems to have
gotten it in their head that Iraq was a threat and that we
needed a war against them.

enough inuendo and speech laden with plausible deniability
and you can control the hearts and minds.


--------------------
All I know is The Growery is a place where losers who get banned here go.


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

Re: Moore hits back [Re: afoaf]
    #1953886 - 09/26/03 11:18 AM (18 years, 19 hours ago)

guns bad....gun control laws good.

:thumbdown:

i guess we know where you stand on the idea of victimless crimes.


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, 4 months
Re: Moore hits back [Re: ]
    #1954055 - 09/26/03 12:56 PM (18 years, 18 hours ago)

Moore deliberatly distorts the truth on many occasions throught the film. And by the academy rules a documentary must be fact in the whole. Staging the bank scene where he gets the gun is not what i call fact. Also cutting other words up to make new sentences and paragraphs in not what i call honest.

Here i decided to take Moore's speech and give it the treatment he gave Heston in his film. Now i QUOTE what Moore said in his article:

"I fantasize about roughhousing with pre-adolescent brothers. "Bowling for Columbine" and "Stupid White Men" are lies. I am a just plain lazy fat fucking piece of shit."

Hrm that was just a little bit to easy. Oscar worthy i would say.


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

bang bang


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
Re: Moore hits back [Re: Edame]
    #1954092 - 09/26/03 01:11 PM (18 years, 18 hours ago)

The first part of that self-serving screed was basically him insulting those who have insulted him. Fair enough. He has the right to do that. Some of his critics go overboard. The fact that he is not exactly a Chippendale's dancer in appearance is irrelevant to what he writes or films, after all.

But when it comes to the "debunking", he fails completely. The bank scene was staged. Calling it a "movie" doesn't excuse the fact that he misrepresented what actually occurs when one opens a new account at that bank.

His sidesteps on the Lockheed Martin misrepresentation are similar. They don't change the fact that the comments he made in the film are wrong. Lies, if you will.

The Charleton Heston thing is even worse. He claims that Heston said exactly these things at exactly this time. Fine... why didn't he show exactly those things in exactly that order rather than cobbling together a carefully-edited fiction?

His excuse is basically what he has said all along once caught out... "Hey, it's a movie, fah cryin' out loud! It's entertainment! Lighten up!"

Well, yeah, it's a movie. Duh! So was Oliver Stone's movie about the Kennedy assasination, but you never saw Stone entering it as a documentary, much less accepting an Oscar for it under false pretenses.

If Moore gives back the Oscar with apologies, it will do a lot to quell the flack he's taking. Anyone want to place a bet in the pool I'm starting as to when that will happen? As the organizer of the pool, I must in fairness tell y'all that I have already taken the slot marked "never".

You will have noticed by now that he has addressed maybe three or four of the dozens of instances where he has been nailed, and no instances having anything to do with his book.

pinky



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


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: Phred]
    #1954168 - 09/26/03 01:43 PM (18 years, 17 hours ago)

Quote:

But when it comes to the "debunking", he fails completely. The bank scene was staged. Calling it a "movie" doesn't excuse the fact that he misrepresented what actually occurs when one opens a new account at that bank.



What was staged about it?

Quote:

His sidesteps on the Lockheed Martin misrepresentation are similar. They don't change the fact that the comments he made in the film are wrong. Lies, if you will.



Ok, explain to me again what he misrepresented here.

Quote:

The Charleton Heston thing is even worse. He claims that Heston said exactly these things at exactly this time. Fine... why didn't he show exactly those things in exactly that order rather than cobbling together a carefully-edited fiction?



Um...maybe because he didn't want to bore the audience by showing the whole damn speech. They do this same thing in news reports all the time. They show the hilights of the speech so as not to bore the viewers with short attention spans.


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


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
Re: Moore hits back [Re: silversoul7]
    #1954226 - 09/26/03 02:01 PM (18 years, 17 hours ago)

If you haven't yet checked the many websites explaining how it was staged, I suggest you do so. The fact is, you don't walk into that bank, open an account, and walk out with a gun.

The plant he indicates doesn't make weapons of mass destruction.

He did one hell of a lot more than just excerpt highlights of a speech. There is one site out there which details exquisitely (like right down to how many seconds into each speech, practically even which frame) the enormous amount of cutting, pasting, shifting, combining Moore did to make it appear that Heston expressed views he never expressed. That site has been posted here before. That site even tells you where you can find the tapes of the original speeches in their entirety so you can see what Heston actually said.

If you choose to believe Moore told the truth, no amount of evidence anyone shows you will convince you otherwise. That is your right, of course. But if you are too lazy too investigate for yourself the reams and reams of highly detailed, multiply-linked proofs of his misrepresentations, inaccuracies, and actual fabrications, don't be arguing with those who have.

The guy lied. Repeatedly, deliberately, maliciously. Then he lies about having lied. I'm glad you enjoyed "Bowling for Columbine". I hope you found it entertaining. But if you treat it as anything other than "just a movie" or "entertainment", to quote Moore himself, you are doing yourself a disservice.

pinky


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


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]
    #1954247 - 09/26/03 02:09 PM (18 years, 17 hours ago)

The bank scene was staged. Calling it a "movie" doesn't excuse the fact that he misrepresented what actually occurs when one opens a new account at that bank.

How exactly did he 'stage' the bank bit? He just claimed that he filmed it as it happened.

His sidesteps on the Lockheed Martin misrepresentation are similar. They don't change the fact that the comments he made in the film are wrong. Lies, if you will.

Again, he denies this, what 'lies' did he say?

The Charleton Heston thing is even worse. He claims that Heston said exactly these things at exactly this time. Fine... why didn't he show exactly those things in exactly that order rather than cobbling together a carefully-edited fiction?

Why don't news organisations show speeches and press conferences in their entirety? Why don't they show exactly what is said instead of choosing 'soundbites' to get their message across? Maybe they have an agenda, maybe they don't have enough time to show every second of footage they have.

His excuse is basically what he has said all along once caught out... "Hey, it's a movie, fah cryin' out loud! It's entertainment! Lighten up!"

Where does he mention this excuse? Why does he then make a claim like this, which is just inviting a lawsuit:

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.

In light of that claim, I actually have to agree with him on the awards thing. If someone can prove that he actually lied, then I'd be all for taking the award away too, but he makes a pretty bold statement, a challenge if you will.

Look at how many awards this film won. It's been judged and viewed by people all over the world. I find it hard to see how such a 'pack of lies' as some people would put it, could fool so many people. How many of his many awards have been rescinded in light of this supposed mountain of evidence against him?

My guess as to why he hasn't mentioned the book is because this is about the film.

d33p:
Here i decided to take Moore's speech and give it the treatment he gave Heston in his film. Now i QUOTE what Moore said in his article:

"I fantasize about roughhousing with pre-adolescent brothers. "Bowling for Columbine" and "Stupid White Men" are lies. I am a just plain lazy fat fucking piece of shit."

Hrm that was just a little bit to easy. Oscar worthy i would say.


No, what you've done is libellous because you haven't acknowledged the gaps (Edit: Ellipsis) between the quotes. Moore does this in the video by interspersing other footage.


--------------------
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 (09/26/03 02:59 PM)


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

Registered: 02/13/99
Posts: 1,617
Re: Moore hits back [Re: Autonomous]
    #1954338 - 09/26/03 02:39 PM (18 years, 16 hours ago)

Oh, I'm sorry.. sensible gun laws are a bad thing, I guess. Any ole joe should have access to an ak 47.

Cool.


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineAzmodeus
Seeker

Registered: 11/27/02
Posts: 3,392
Loc: Lotus Land!! B.C.
Last seen: 16 years, 8 months
Re: Moore hits back [Re: Edame]
    #1954407 - 09/26/03 02:59 PM (18 years, 16 hours ago)

Well, moors facts and links are far more convincing than said websites with said 'proof' of his deceptions. :tongue:


--------------------
"Know your Body - Know your Mind - Know your Substance - Know your Source.

Lest we forget. "


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, 4 months
Re: Moore hits back [Re: Edame]
    #1954420 - 09/26/03 03:04 PM (18 years, 16 hours ago)

Quote:

Edame said:
No, what you've done is libellous because you haven't acknowledged the gaps between the quotes. Moore does this in the video by interspersing other footage.




ok here

pretend i put this on a video with a pic of moore while i read this.
[sound]= implies a play a sound of 1 decibel which is intersplicing in this case

"I [sound] fantasize[sound]about[sound]roughhousing[sound]with [sound]pre-adolescent[sound] brothers. "Bowling for Columbine" and "Stupid White Men" [sound] are [sound]lies. [sound]I [sound]am [sound]a [sound]just plain lazy [sound]fat fucking piece of shit."

Now this is to the extent of what moore did. Sure he may have showed a pic of the crowd inbetween but one would think that is usual of the speech footage. I even put in more sounds than needed.

This may not be illegal by any means but this sure is dishonest. We are talking the oscars not pepitos back country movie awards. I would admit moore did a masterfull job at making this movie, buts just what it is a movie not a documentary worthy of an oscar.

And edame you can call up that very bank and ask them if moore had previously gone into the bank and set up what he was going to film. And guess what the answer they provide is?

YES

And about lockheed moore used the term missle which implies military bombs although they only make sattilite rockets. Also he says they ship them around town under the cover of darkness while the kids of columbine speak. Rockets are super heavy so they move slow while being transported. They do it at night to avoid traffic jams. If you dont this is distorting the truth, you sir are a dumbass.


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

bang bang


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]
    #1954510 - 09/26/03 03:29 PM (18 years, 15 hours ago)

ok here

pretend i put this on a video with a pic of moore while i read this.
[sound]= implies a play a sound of 1 decibel which is intersplicing in this case

"I [sound] fantasize[sound]about[sound]roughhousing[sound]with [sound]pre-adolescent[sound] brothers. "Bowling for Columbine" and "Stupid White Men" [sound] are [sound]lies. [sound]I [sound]am [sound]a [sound]just plain lazy [sound]fat fucking piece of shit."

Now this is to the extent of what moore did. Sure he may have showed a pic of the crowd inbetween but one would think that is usual of the speech footage. I even put in more sounds than needed.


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.

And edame you can call up that very bank and ask them if moore had previously gone into the bank and set up what he was going to film. And guess what the answer they provide is?

YES


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?

And about lockheed moore used the term missle which implies military bombs although they only make sattilite rockets.

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

Also he says they ship them around town under the cover of darkness while the kids of columbine speak. Rockets are super heavy so they move slow while being transported. They do it at night to avoid traffic jams.

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

If you dont this is distorting the truth, you sir are a dumbass.

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





--------------------
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.


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]
    #1954521 - 09/26/03 03:34 PM (18 years, 15 hours ago)

Quote:

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



That's pretty much the gist of it, ya.


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


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
Re: Moore hits back [Re: Edame]
    #1954827 - 09/26/03 05:21 PM (18 years, 13 hours ago)

I give up.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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 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.

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.

pinky


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineAzmodeus
Seeker

Registered: 11/27/02
Posts: 3,392
Loc: Lotus Land!! B.C.
Last seen: 16 years, 8 months
Re: Moore hits back [Re: Phred]
    #1954947 - 09/26/03 05:55 PM (18 years, 13 hours ago)

^^^
well said! :thumbup:


--------------------
"Know your Body - Know your Mind - Know your Substance - Know your Source.

Lest we forget. "


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,245
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: Moore hits back [Re: Phred]
    #1955133 - 09/26/03 06:40 PM (18 years, 12 hours ago)

Bravo pinky. BRAVO!


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


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: luvdemshrooms]
    #1955184 - 09/26/03 06:53 PM (18 years, 12 hours 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


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, 4 months
Re: Moore hits back [Re: Edame]
    #1955238 - 09/26/03 07:13 PM (18 years, 11 hours 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


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

Re: Moore hits back [Re: Phred]
    #1955279 - 09/26/03 07:25 PM (18 years, 11 hours 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."


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

Registered: 04/20/01
Posts: 32,703
Loc: High pride!
Last seen: 1 day, 5 minutes
Re: Moore hits back [Re: silversoul7]
    #1955588 - 09/26/03 09:42 PM (18 years, 9 hours 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



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 (18 years, 8 hours 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.


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 (18 years, 7 hours ago)

^^^excellent post, Edame! :thumbup:


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


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


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, 4 months
Re: Moore hits back [Re: Edame]
    #1955825 - 09/26/03 11:41 PM (18 years, 7 hours 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


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

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 25,806
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 5 hours, 38 minutes
Re: Moore hits back [Re: Learyfan]
    #1955882 - 09/27/03 12:12 AM (18 years, 6 hours 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.


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: 8 years, 1 month
Re: Moore hits back [Re: Baby_Hitler]
    #1956084 - 09/27/03 01:33 AM (18 years, 5 hours 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?


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 (18 years, 3 hours 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?


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 (18 years, 1 hour 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)


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, 11 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.


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, 11 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.


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


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

Registered: 05/28/03
Posts: 842
Loc: OR
Last seen: 3 months, 5 days
Re: Moore hits back [Re: PsiloKitten]
    #1957039 - 09/27/03 01:45 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

^^
Ditto.


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


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, 4 months
Re: Moore hits back [Re: Edame]
    #1958518 - 09/28/03 12:47 AM (17 years, 11 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


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

Registered: 05/28/03
Posts: 842
Loc: OR
Last seen: 3 months, 5 days
Re: Moore hits back [Re: d33p]
    #1958664 - 09/28/03 02:07 AM (17 years, 11 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


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, 11 months ago)

*ludicrous


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, 11 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.


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, 4 months
Re: Moore hits back [Re: Edame]
    #1960384 - 09/28/03 07:09 PM (17 years, 11 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


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, 11 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)


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, 4 months
Re: Moore hits back [Re: Edame]
    #1970091 - 10/01/03 07:15 PM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

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





Im sure moore made his movie to get out all the correct facts.

Quote:


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.




Well im sorry but i dont have the resources to research and find campagin posters from 10+ years ago. But ask yourself if bush is losing the black minority vote why would he intentionly make that kind of postor statement. Just take a step back and see how ludacris it is. But of course that isnt "illegal" beacuse he was only showing both at both to conserve time....

Quote:


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.




I wasent making my point about it being wrong i was saying how it is put in to make it look as though it is apart of the ad.

Quote:


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?
Quote:



Moore portrays the events as if Heston rushed to denver to hold rallies for pro-gun. He intentionaly leaves out that the meeting had to occur. Also i wouldnt call what happened a "pro-gun rally" it was simply a meeting of the members from the surronding locations for structural matters withen the NRA. Moore is dishonest.

Quote:


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?





Ugh you didnt read it correctly, i was refering to the demonstation he held at flint. Sorry if i confused you. "Are they now embarrassed by this sick, repulsive image and the words that accompany it" I am repulsed about how moore cut the speech to make it seem as though he said it at the columbine rally to further his own agenda.





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?




For one i didnt copy it from that site. And obviously if you must present proper id to buy something and it is known you didnt, that would mean it was either faked or illegal. And it wasent what he said, it was that he filmed it and that shows what happened. Not a single question was asked, now if he just cut out the part where he showed his license or he had it set up that is either a lie or dishonesty.

Quote:


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.




Editing for time does not mean it is right to end in the middle of sentences while slapping them next to other partial sentences which in turn makes intirely new sentences.

The camera changes everything, etc., so in video there can be no truth or falsity. Sample: "tv and movies, newspapers or even documentaries *are* constructions, not "the truth" ("truth" is subjective personal opinion/experience, which would be impossible to commit to videotape or celluloid)."

Although i dont want to group you into any category this is what i fell the argument boils down to just as many others come to down ot simple semantics.

But anyway ive given up with this, everyone has their opinon and mine is he should have been nominated for an oscar.

And sorry for bumping up this since its sorta old. My house had an enormous power surge, causing it to almost burn down and leave me with no power since sunday.


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

bang bang


Extras: Filter Print Post Remind Me! Notify Moderator Top
OfflineRoseM
Devil's Advocate
Female User Gallery

Registered: 09/24/03
Posts: 22,517
Loc: Mod not God Flag
Last seen: 3 months, 11 days
Re: Moore hits back [Re: d33p]
    #1971616 - 10/02/03 02:49 AM (17 years, 11 months ago)

Thanks for being the voice of reason Edame. Your posts show you do your research. Thanks for all the links. They go a long way towards credibility.


--------------------
Fiddlesticks.



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

Re: Moore hits back [Re: Edame]
    #1972072 - 10/02/03 09:29 AM (17 years, 11 months ago)

I'd shoot moore just to watch his fat ass die
(and to watch the twinkies leak outta the hole)


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

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


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Bowling for Columbine
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )
ChuangTzu 6,464 109 12/30/02 08:58 PM
by Ellis Dee
* 10 Reasons Bush wants to ban Moore film
( 1 2 3 4 all )
LearyfanS 7,551 60 06/02/04 01:15 PM
by Vvellum
* Michael Moore's DWMC - a review
( 1 2 all )
Sclorch 4,684 34 01/16/04 07:08 PM
by d33p
* Academy Awards Anti-War Message from Michael Moore
( 1 2 3 all )
mjshroomer 3,137 57 03/24/03 02:59 PM
by mjshroomer
* 'Fahrenheit 9/11' a No. 1 Hit Across America fft2 820 13 06/29/04 02:22 AM
by Swami
* Michael Moore Owned Halliburton, Defense Stocks Luddite 1,477 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 10,010 211 09/16/03 11:01 AM
by Zildjian
* Disney has blocked Micheal Moore's new film
( 1 2 all )
carbonhoots 2,279 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
4,869 topic views. 0 members, 0 guests and 4 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Print Topic | ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2021 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.052 seconds spending 0.011 seconds on 16 queries.