| AudioREVIEW's Forum Archives - Favorite Films |
|
|   Michael Moore, Fraud Extraordinaire! | jeskibuff
Jul 27, 2003 2:06 PM | | Tonight's "60 Minutes" features a segment about the "documentary" filmmaker Michael Moore, best known for his films "Roger & Me" about General Motors and "Bowling for Columbine", about the Colorado school massacre.
I'm pretty sure that tonight's segment is a repeat, but I'll watch it anyway to see if any serious questions get posed to Michael concerning his techniques in manipulating the truth. For more detail, check out http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html.
This idiot deserves to get his Oscar taken away.
Many of you can identify me as being pretty conservative, but when it comes to gun control, I am swayed more towards the views shared by liberals. Nevertheless, "Bowling For Columbine" is a distortion of the truth. I know that some here have said that they were impressed by the film. I haven't seen it yet, but these documented distortions should cause concern about its credibility. |
| My only response is.... see it BEFORE you damn it! | Worf101
Jul 28, 2003 8:49 AM | | I understand where you're coming from and I checked out the website as well. Perhaps they have a point if the factual inaccuracies are true. However I have a hard time with people condemning movies/films they've never seen. That smacks of Nazi's burning books they've never read. Do you trust the originator of this website to spoon feed your opinion of this film? I no more trust some anonymous wag with a web site than I trust Michael Moore to provide my only opinion on ANY issue.
If I were you I'd see the film, read the website and other sources THEN come forth with an opinion. I'd be more responsive to that than just a blanket damning. It's like the Catholics damning Last Tempation of Christ, The Exorcist and Rosemary's Baby, but never having seen any of the films... just makes them look reactionary and ignorant.
Da Worfster |
| I'm reactionary, not ignorant | jack70
Jul 30, 2003 10:46 AM | | I've seen the film... it's second rate IMO. Hollywood and and those that praise it (so much) do it more for political reasons than artistic ones. And Hollywood has a very spotty record if you look at which films and actors win awards and how they get nominated... it's full of second rate and emotionally selected winners; much like high school popularity type voting.
Moore's not so much a true ducumentary film maker as much as a propaganda film maker. You want a documentary, watch Frontline Reports, which tries to give a balanced view. Funny you mentioned "Nazis", because Moore is more like Refeinstall (sp) than you think. And BTW, do you think reading those books would have changed the Nazi's views on burning them?
<center>
<a href="http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110003807" title="Michael Moore, Humbug-He's mendacious and obnoxious, so what accounts for his appeal?" target="_blank">STUPID WHITE LIES</a></center>
If you want some TRUE insight into what motivates youth in doing Columbine-like calamities, read some of Richard Rhodes research on the subject. He's written dozens of books, and received the Pulitzer for The Making of the Atomic Bomb. He's a truth seeker, not a clownish master of deception. |
| I'm reactionary, not ignorant | Troy
Jul 31, 2003 8:02 AM | | Moore just calls out people that deserve calling out. Yeah, he's a card carrying member of the NRA. God forbid he'd question or doubt the validity of the NRA's response to the misuse of their products. If you had read "Stupid White Men", you'd know that the spends an enitre chapter just reaming Clinton and his self serving and partisan policies.
Kay Hymowitz's article you directed us to is cynical and misguided. Just more blinder-wearing partry-partisan whining. What you have to understand is that Moore is not about liberalism, he's about Libertarianism. He's against big government, in fact, he's against government period. But more than anything else, he's against big business running the government . . . and THAT is why the conservative right is so intimidated by him. I tell ya, the Demos don't like him either because he's also against big media (which is REALLY what "Columbine" was about- the fear and paranoid frenzy that the media whips America into constantly), the Demos are also in the pocket of big business, it's just a different big business. People in the gov't hate Moore because he thinks for himself and he cuts through the BS being spoon fed to us by the real power structure in this country- Big Business.
Reifenstall had no idea what she was doing or what she was promoting. It was too early in the Nazi regeime for most people to see where Hitler was headed. OTOH, Moore knows exactly what he's doing. |
| nice touch Troy! -nt | Bush Is A Liar
Jul 31, 2003 4:04 PM | | |
| I'm reactionary, not ignorant | jack70
Jul 31, 2003 9:54 PM | | One reason for my reply was, I was a ticked at Worf's slam of jeskibuff's opinion, using "Nazi" and "Catholic" hyperbolic junk... so I threw some junk back at him to see what it feels like. You certainly can disagree with him, but calling him ignorant and using that Nazi crap is over the line IMO.
As for Reifenstall (sorry, I'm a rotten speller), I've read different interpretations (although revisionist history is always something to be wary about)... so I'm willing to agree with you & cut her some slack. But my point about "propaganda" was what I was focusing on, not her. Moore's films are (in part) designed to "sell" a political viewpoint. And that's fine with me. But just like so many that were snookered by Reifenstall and her lot (many Americans too), many are being snookered by Moore. He's actually not that much different from the "devious corporate suits" he rails against... he's just selling his own brand of Soma for us.
I've read a lot of Moore's stuff, including interviews, and seen him interviewed on TV. And he is NO libertarian... I've been a libertarian for over 20 yrs; just because he may say a few libertarian things doesn't cut it. He seems to me, little different than a carnival barker who's risen 2 stages over his Peter Principle plateau. Another entertainer with a luke-warm IQ. What I find distressing, is that so many people buy into his thinking so easily. IMO he's a bully & hypocrite with a 2'nd rate desire for the truth. He may have legitimate targets to go after (that I agree with) but he's really uninformed in so many ways.
Look, I like all sorts of crappy music, 2'nd rate films, and lousy books. And people can worship whoever they like. But when someone like Moore get's people believing some of his idiotic reasoning, I just think it's incumbent to call him on it. Moore has no real solutions to his world-view, his facts & logic are aften wrong, so his whole act appears specious to people like myself.
So no hard feelings Worfster, or Troy. Buy his stuff and be happy. But I DO think Moore is a loudmouth obnoxious misinformed clown. And I've already wasted way moore time than he deserves... shows how smart I am, huh? |
| Funny.... I didn't feel "slammed" | Worf101
Jul 31, 2003 10:36 PM | | I was not defending Moore or his film... I was simply stating a fact that opinions of movies one hasn't seen are "worthless". You have no basis in FACT with which to make a comment. The two salient facts of my arguement are still correct:
Nazi's burned books they hadn't read.
The Catholic League of Decency or whatever they called themselves, routinely banned and damned films they had not seen...
I was not calling anyone a Nazi... I simply pointed out what the Nazi's did. You being "ticked" about it doesn't make it go away. Its what they did, and some people today do the same things... I think some of the furor over Huck Finn is equally as ignorant as I know some of the antagonists haven't read the book. Ignorance is ignorance...
I didn't disagree with the man's opinion about Moore, I disagreed with him or anyone condemning something of which they know nothing... That is the cruelest form of ignorance in its most naked form... blind.
Da Worfster |
| perhaps you should... | jack70
Aug 2, 2003 7:02 AM | | <i>You have no basis in FACT with which to make a comment.</i>
Your thoughts on banning & burning -- I never disputed such things happen. (Although I'd reiterate that it's a poor analogy because the Nazi's would have banned those books <b>even if they HAD read em</b>... same with the Catholics. You think they ALL had to watch Deep Throat to ban it... give me a break.)
But... your whole emphasizing such "facts"... (that the Nazi's & Catholics banned certain stuff)... is just <b>avoiding</b> what actually ticked me off.
<i>I was not calling anyone a Nazi... I simply pointed out what the Nazi's did. You being "ticked" about it doesn't make it go away</i>
I'm not ticked about <b>that</b>... duh! Here's what you said:
<i>I have a hard time with people condemning movies/films they've never seen. That smacks of Nazi's burning books.</i>
Sure looks to me like you're calling his "condemnation" "Nazi"-like to me. Spin it any way you like.
you also wrote this:
<i>It's like... ...just makes them look reactionary and ignorant.</i>
If "Nazi" wasn't enough.... add on ignorant. Nice.
IMO, you can take issue with someone "prejudging" a film, or book (although we all do it). But comparing them to the Nazi's, and saying they "look ignorant" makes you look vicious. Yeah, that's what ticked me off. All I have to go on, Worf ...are your words. |
| Let me jump in here for a sec, man! | Troy
Aug 2, 2003 10:08 AM | | <i>Your thoughts on banning & burning -- I never disputed such things happen. (Although I'd reiterate that it's a poor analogy because the Nazi's would have banned those books even if they HAD read em... same with the Catholics. You think they ALL had to watch Deep Throat to ban it... give me a break.)</i>
Who said anything about "Deep Throat"? Still, I have to wonder if there would have been all the Christian-right's uproar over "Last Temptation" had the zealots standing outside the theater with picket signs actually seen the movie and made their OWN judgement. THAT'S more in line with what Worf was talking about.
<i>IMO, you can take issue with someone "prejudging" a film, or book (although we all do it). But comparing them to the Nazi's, and saying they "look ignorant" makes you look vicious. Yeah, that's what ticked me off. All I have to go on, Worf ...are your words.</i>
No, see, there's a definite distinction here. We all know that "Gigli" sucks even though none of us have seen it. How can it possibly NOT suck? But judging a movie (or book or art piece or whatever) purely because it might impinge upon one's religeous beliefs or political ideology without actually witnessing the potentially offensive sections for one's self DOES smack of blindered closed-mindedness. Nazis? That's going too far for a supposedly easygoing messageboard about movies. But this closed-mindedness is indicative of a society that is arrogant, easily manipulated and led . . .
Hey, it's a free country. You can choose to say you hate "Gigli" or "Columbine" without seeing either, but the reasoning behind hating them is quite a bit different. Bad film is bad film, but it's not right to say you hate some movie's politics without seeing the subtlties of the presentation of those politics for yourself. |
| When you call someone... | Worf101
Aug 2, 2003 5:06 PM | | "A fraud extraordinaire" and you haven't SEEN THE FILM that is ignorant. I'm sorry, there's not getting around that. I said it makes him look reactionary and ignorant... I stand by that. It makes him LOOK that way... Would you respect me or listen to me if I said Shakespeares works were a load of cobblers and his reputation is wholly undeserved IF I'D NEVER READ A SINGLE SONNETT??? No of course you wouldn't. You'd call me an ignorant buffoon and you'd be right to do so...
I'll agree with you, perhaps the use of Nazi's as comparison is a bit much... but blind attacks on ANYONE, particularly artists, enrage me. Hate Picasso if you will, but look at his work. I can't stand that pompous hag Ayn Rand, but I read her work BEFORE tossing it in the garbage bin. Why, so I know what the hell I was talking about.
I said it "smacks" of it... reminds me of it. If you feel that was too much fine... point stated and received but prejudging a work and not seeing it.... IS NOT THE SAME GOING ON LIKE AND ACCUSING THE MAKER OF A FILM YOU HANEN'T SEEN OF BEING A FRAUD. If you can't spin out of that. That's just plain wrong any way you cut it.
Da Worfster |
| I'm game... | jack70
Aug 4, 2003 5:23 AM | | I fear we're going a bit astray here... an inherent handicap of the web, eh? But I'm game...
Troy first-
<i>Who said anything about "Deep Throat"? Still, I have to wonder if there would have been all the Christian-right's uproar over "Last Temptation" had the zealots standing outside the theater with picket signs actually seen the movie and made their OWN judgement. THAT'S more in line with what Worf was talking about</i>
"Who said anything about Deep Throat"? I did. You mean <i>certain</i> bannings are OK? (just tweaking ya). Look, I understand the point being made; I was upset over the context...especially since it was misdirected (not seeing the film... <b>instead of</b> ...the link Jeskibuff was alluding to).
While we're on "banning"... I was raised Catholic (& left) so I know better than most what a bunch of idiots they can be... but I was just showing the falacy in the logic that you gotta read/see something to know <i>something</i> about it. I'll agree with your main point of course. But, I don't bother finishing books, music, or movies that are crap.... I don't need to waste my time digesting <b>all of it</b> to know it's lousy.
<i>...without actually witnessing the potentially offensive sections for one's self DOES smack of blindered closed-mindedness. Nazis? That's going too far for a supposedly easygoing messageboard about movies. But this closed-mindedness is indicative of a society that is arrogant, easily manipulated and led . .</i>
Look, I simply saw Worf's "Nazi" comparison as a slam at Jeskibuff... an unwaranted one. He probably shouldn't have worded it like that, but he went on to call him ignorant too... and it ticked me off (sensitive sod that I am).
Ironic that Moore himself used deception & fabrication in his own film to obscure the truth... much like the Nazis did in their propaganda (master race et al). I'd also agree with you that our society is easily manipulated... which is part of the reason for getting on my high horse when drivel like Moore's can influence so many.
Worf-
<i>"A fraud extraordinaire" and you haven't SEEN THE FILM that is ignorant. I'm sorry, there's not getting around that. I said it makes him look reactionary and ignorant... I stand by that.</i>
If Jeskibuff had simply said the film was awful without seeing it, I'd agree with you. His opinion of a "fraud" was aimed at Moore from the investigative story he linked, not the film itself.
I've seen it, and it's true.... Moore distorted facts with his editing to produce a pop propaganda film... and then sold it as a "ducumentary". For something so politically charged (mass murder, guns, etc), it deserves truth. Instead, Moore uses humor & deception to entertain the masses. The effect is a lot like Reifenstall.... the difference is that Moore <i>intentionally</i> used fraud to damage innocents and spew his naive worldview. It's not nearly as digusting as say, Eugenics propaganda, but I hope you can see why some get angry when someone like Moore uses that (Columbine) as a pallette to distort the truth. (bad taste at the least). Factually he's all wet too, but that's beyond this thread.
Look... Moore has written some good stuff, & influenced others (RivetHead) but he's gone off the deep end IMO. He once had some truth and hypocrisy to expose, but his meager background in economics and history makes much of his work look like the ranting of the naked loon on the street corner. If only <i>more</i> recognized the deception and slanting. At least Jeskibuff will.
If we'd been discussing this with some beers by the pool, I think most of this would have been avoided & we could have had a much more interesting discussion about guns, violence, government & corporate influence. Oh well. Dontcha love the web? Gotta run... Gigli is about to start.
 |
| I'm game... | Worf101
Aug 7, 2003 7:39 AM | | Now, your last paragraph I can agree with... even though I don't drink... (long story). Lets call a halt to the blood letting and state that we agree to disagree on the merits of Moore as a film maker/director/propagandist and leave it at that.
Da Worfster |
| Stunning . . . | Troy
Jul 31, 2003 7:38 AM | | Worf, your delicacy in handling this post is admirable.
I'll just say I agree with every word Worf says here, rather than getting angry at the original poster. |
| Thanks for the Kudos Troy... | Worf101
Jul 31, 2003 8:19 AM | | I do actually "engage my brain" before I write these posts... even if the subject is about Superheroes. If a person has a "reasoned" approach to a subject, no matter how controversial, and is willing to have an adult conversation and not a shouting match, I'll talk to anyone about almost anything. If we can reason together like human beings instead of shouting at one another like frightened apes perhaps we'll all learn something.
That's what I'm not afraid to do or say. I read, I study, I don't come by my opinions lightly or quickly, however if someone can, through, logic, fact and reason prove to me that my position is flawed, I'll admit it. In the "take no prisoner, hear no answer" form of discourse that passes for "debate" today no one ever admits they might be wrong. They must be right at all costs, whether the discussion is about Race, Politics, Football, you name it, no one's ever wrong.
I'm sometimes wrong, and I admit it, because as much as I read, ponder and study, I don't know it ALL.
Da "Still Larnin' after all these yars" Worfster |
| Good grief! | jeskibuff
Aug 1, 2003 8:28 PM | | Well, Worf, you seem to imply that I told everybody who owned this movie to take it out and burn it. The very last statement in my post summed up my feelings: "these documented distortions should cause concern about its credibility". I also said "I haven't seen it YET". I do plan on seeing it, but I won't drop a dime on it when I do. Did I tell ANYONE to <b>NOT</b> see the movie?? You accuse ME of condemning the movie, but you seem to be the one doing all the condemnation here.
The list of distortions detailed in the "Truth about Bowling" site is long. Many things are easily verifiable. For instance, hitting the pause button on a DVD or VCR is a nice way to confirm the editing ploy that Moore uses to transition from one Heston speech to another. Or maybe you think that Heston still has the Moses/"Ten Commandments" touch and that God changed his clothing in mid-speech?
If "the anonymous wag with the website" references even ONE trick that CAN'T be proven, HIS credibility is shot. Moore plays with people's emotions, using a medium that best exploits them. The website deals with less entertaining means: words that must be read and lack the humor that Moore relies on to entrance his audience. Yes, I would trust that information more than I would trust Moore. Understanding the possible motives that Moore has in creating his films is yet another valuable tool in assessing the veracity of his work. The same goes for the website's creator.
So what comes first, the chicken or the egg? I prefer to have a heads-up of such Moore trickery BEFORE I see the movie. I can watch for the scenes and look for the sneaky edits. You seem to be happy with gobbling down Moore's whole message, deception and all. It appears that with you, the end justifies the means. The tricks don't matter if you agree with the outcome. SOMEONE <b>IS</b> allowing themselves to get spoonfed an opinion, but it AIN'T ME, babe!
You make yet another assumption that I have my opinion set in concrete, then you call me "reactionary" and "ignorant". Aren't you the one being reactionary and ignorant here? I merely alerted people to these discrepancies. I did NOT tell them that the film was entirely crapola and not worth watching. I clearly indicated that I believed there was "cause for concern" about its credibility. I left it up for other people to verify the discrepancies for themselves.
Troy justifies Moore's action because the targets are people who Troy hates too. Both Troy and Moore may be right: they may be bad people, but if that's true, you don't need to resort to trickery to prove your point. Using smoke and mirrors with intent to deceive makes <b>you</b> the bad guy!
There should be more than enough evidence to nail criminals to the wall without resorting to fabricating it.
Troy thinks Moore is anti-big-business. It seems more probable that Moore found his niche in making people <b><i>believe</i></b> he's the David going up against the Goliaths. Fair-minded people love the underdog, and Moore's downtrodden, overweight blue-collar Joe Schmoe image resonates more with Americans than the polished, rich, upper-crust elitists who he targets.
Then Worf again tries to buttress his position by saying that unless I've seen "Columbine", I have absolutely <b>no</b> right to an opinion on the issue. Sorry Worf, but you're wrong on two counts. First, my opinion isn't solidified. I remain open to the possibility that the information in the website is inaccurate or distorted, but I think that is a VERY slim possibility. There is a much greater likelihood that "Columbine" is distorted. Second, I have every right to toss out such a warning to people. Hopefully, anybody who has seen or plans on seeing "Columbine" will give it a closer look with this extra information in hand. So drop your repeated accusations of ignorance, Worf. It only shows YOUR ignorance and attempt to portray yourself as a Nazi-fighter!
|
| ...and...the "chopped off" paragraph... | jeskibuff
Aug 1, 2003 8:30 PM | | Incidentally, I HAD seen that "60 minutes" segment before. It didn't address ANYTHING about these filmmaking ploys. Moore was only "accused" of getting in the face of the "Goliaths" and trying to embarrass them. To this accusation, he remained true to his "David" image by "valiantly" promising to continue his crusade for the sake of all us little people. |
| "Good Grief" is right! | Troy
Aug 2, 2003 11:00 AM | | <i>I also said "I haven't seen it YET". I do plan on seeing it, but I won't drop a dime on it when I do. Did I tell ANYONE to NOT see the movie?? You accuse ME of condemning the movie, but you seem to be the one doing all the condemnation here.</i>
You ARE condemning the movie without seeing it. Your condemnation implies your recommendation to NOT see it.
When you fianlly DO see it, will you be able to forgo all this preprogramming you've subjected yourself to? Will you be able to make your own judgement? Of course you will say yes to that, but this was just a friendly reminder, ok?
<i> For instance, hitting the pause button on a DVD or VCR is a nice way to confirm the editing ploy that Moore uses to transition from one Heston speech to another. Or maybe you think that Heston still has the Moses/"Ten Commandments" touch and that God changed his clothing in mid-speech?</i>
How can you say this without actually having seen it? Frankly, Heston IS a pompous pontificating buffoon lost in a bygone America. He thinks he still is Moses, yes and even worse, he's still trading on it because many people still think he IS Moses too. Actors as politicians . . . ugh, don't get me started.
He looked tired in "Columbine". He looked bewildered and yes, he looked set up. But you know what? Heston had the opportunity to not put himself in the position of being ambushed if he had ANY awareness of the real world around him, if he had any inkling as to who Moore was and what he represented, but no. Heston, in his ignorant arrogance (sympomatic of the NRA's stance as well) chose to think that no one could possibly question him in an interview in his own home. Heston's a schmuck and a patsy for the NRA and its special interests and this interview made that stunningly clear.
<i> I did NOT tell them that the film was entirely crapola and not worth watching. I clearly indicated that I believed there was "cause for concern" about its credibility. I left it up for other people to verify the discrepancies for themselves.</i>
Again, it was implied.
As to the discrepancies illustrated in the Hardy website, I can only shrug. Who you gonna believe? Who's actually being the manipulator here? Perhaps both of them? Naw, odds are it's only gonna be the guy you're predisposed to dislike, right?
Regardless of these types of liberties Moore allegedy took with putting the film together, it's a question of attitude. Whether Lockheed makes actual war weapons in Littleton doesn't matter. Fact is, you work for Lockheed, you work for a weapons manufacturer. Doesn't matter if you clean toilets in some corporate office in Scranton, you still work under that thumb. As far as I'm concerned, whether Heston's strident and agressive speech happened the week the shootings happened or 8 months later doesn't dispose of the fact that <i>it happened.</i>
<i>Troy justifies Moore's action because the targets are people who Troy hates too. Both Troy and Moore may be right: they may be bad people, but if that's true, you don't need to resort to trickery to prove your point.</i>
True to a certain extent, but as I said above, it really doesn't matter in the context of what Moore's whole point of the movie was. <b>The fact that Hardy went out of his way to disect the movie to find these liberties that Moore supposedly took only serves to obfuscate the fact that, in your words "Both Troy and Moore may be right: they may be bad people".</b> Think along those lines when you see this movie.
Like I said at the beginning of this endless message, see the damn thing yourself. Factor in what you care to believe from the Hardy site, factor in Moore's real point and attitude behind the film and THEN, make a decision for yourself based on all this information. Come talk to us about it then. |
| Well, <b>THAT</b> explains it! | jeskibuff
Aug 3, 2003 5:08 AM | | Troy is a Michael Moore groupie! <img src="http://www.egri.co.uk/smileys/spin.gif">
Troy says:<font color=maroon>You ARE condemning the movie without seeing it. Your condemnation implies your recommendation to NOT see it. When you fianlly DO see it, will you be able to forgo all this preprogramming you've subjected yourself to? Will you be able to make your own judgement?</font>
Well Troy, I have much more confidence in my objectivity than I have in yours. In fact, you seem to be TOTALLY unable to be objective! As for "preprogramming", there is NO brainwashing going on in MY neighborhood. There are specific instances mentioned where Moore uses deceptive ploys. All anyone needs to do is watch the section where Heston miraculously changes clothes in the middle of his speech. If there is no change in his attire, the website is wrong. If however, there IS a change, that's a good indication that Moore glued two of Heston's speeches together in order to make Heston say what he wanted him to. This should be an affront to ANYONE'S sense of justice - nobody wants to be judged by having their words being taken out of context. It should also (in my opinion) be one of the easiest tests to compare the veracity of Moore's film to the Hardynet website's allegations. My well-founded suspicion that the website is more credible is MY only "bias".
You, however seem to be showing those very signs of being programmed. You say: <font color=maroon>"Regardless of these types of liberties Moore allegedy took with putting the film together, it's a question of attitude."</font> and <font color=maroon>"it really doesn't matter in the context of what Moore's whole point of the movie was."</font>
Aren't you saying: "It doesn't matter to me if the film was saturated with instances of lies and deception, I like the result and that's all that's important to me"?? Again, the end justifies the means. Talk about being brainwashed!!
You (or others who saw the movie and are reading this) don't seem to be denying that Moore tried to sell the notion that Lockheed Martin was smuggling their manufactured nasties out under the cover of darkness. You saw the film. Tell me, did Moore <b>NOT</b> make that implication? You don't seem to care that he is trying to hoodwink his audience into believing what HE wants them to believe. You seem to be a willing sucker for his propaganda! You don't seem to mind that it was a total fabrication. I would call <b>THAT</b> being "preprogrammed".
You seem to bristle at the mere THOUGHT that anybody should question your hero's creation. You don't seem to want to question the foundation on which this film was based. In fact, you seem to be clinging on to its value much like an old superstitious woman would clutch her good luck charm in a lightning storm. Perhaps it makes you feel better, but is there any substance to the belief?
<font color=maroon>Heston had the opportunity to not put himself in the position of being ambushed if he had ANY awareness of the real world around him, if he had any inkling as to who Moore was and what he represented, but no. Heston, in his ignorant arrogance (sympomatic of the NRA's stance as well) chose to think that no one could possibly question him in an interview in his own home.</font>
So you think that Heston is arrogant and ignorant because he didn't bother with familiarizing himself with Moore's work? How arrogant and ignorant of <b>YOU</b> to think so! It's a free country and Heston should be able to spend his time however he so chooses. Just because <b>you</b> idolize Moore doesn't mean that everybody else thinks he's anything special. Just because "Friends" has been a top-rated show doesn't mean that someone who chooses to spend time with their kids instead of watching TV makes them ignorant because they don't know who "Rachel" is. Your screwed-up logic is truly jaw-dropping!
Who you gonna believe? |
| (continued) | jeskibuff
Aug 3, 2003 5:16 AM | | <font color=maroon>Who you gonna believe? Who's actually being the manipulator here? Perhaps both of them? Naw, odds are it's only gonna be the guy you're predisposed to dislike, right?</font>
There's an EASY answer to your question, Troy, but you probably won't like it: you simply VERIFY THE FACTS. Is there an obvious continuity snafu as Heston changes clothes in mid-speech? Is the Lockheed facility spiriting out nasty weapons in the middle of the night? You are evidently predisposed to ignoring these discrepancies and embracing Moore's propaganda with open arms!
<font color=maroon>How can you say this without actually having seen it? Frankly, Heston IS a pompous pontificating buffoon lost in a bygone America.</font>
Here, you <b>completely</b> fail to understand the severity of this "problem". It matters not whether Heston is a pompous buffoon or he isn't. I'm <b>not</b> questioning gun control laws, Heston's mental acuity or the NRA's platform. I'm questioning the practice of FRAUDULENT filmmaking techniques! In that context, it DOES matter that Moore apparently had to splice at least two different speeches together in order to sell <b>his</b> perception of Heston to his audience. If Moore resorted to trickery, he not only puts into question HIS credibility, but he also undermines his cause. If he has to fabricate evidence in order to make his points, perhaps those points have little to no merit to begin with. Apparently he can't find enough evidence that will stand on its own?
<font color=maroon>The fact that Hardy went out of his way to disect the movie to find these liberties that Moore supposedly took only serves to obfuscate the fact that, in your words "Both Troy and Moore may be right: they may be bad people".</font>
First, are you saying that Hardy wasted his time pointing out such discrepancies? I think he did a very VALUABLE service. Many of these incongruities would slip right by the average viewer. Second, you missed a VERY important word in that sentence: "MAY", as in "they MAY be bad people". It sounds to me like you've already pronounced judgment on them. They MAY be bad people, but then again, they MAY <b>NOT</b> be! I at least can be open to BOTH possibilities. Your mind apparently is already made up. Maybe we can thank Mr. Moore for that?
<font color=maroon>How can you say this without actually having seen it?</font>
C'mon, Troy...it's RIGHT in front of your face. Did you have to be a part of Jim Jones' Guyana group to understand that the guy was a wacko? Did you have to be a "Heaven's Gate" cult member to understand that there is no spaceship hiding behind the Hale-Bopp comet? Here's breaking news: you don't HAVE to be immersed in sewage to know that it stinks. You can get a whiff of it from "the outside". In fact, if you're immersed in it, you may get used to the stench. I'm not calling "Columbine" sewage, mind you, just making an analogy. (I know that if I didn't just make that "disclaimer" that you'd be hopping ALL OVER that "sewage" statement, wouldn't you?) If someone says there's a section in this movie where Heston changes clothes mid-speech <b>AND NO ONE DENIES IT</b>, I think there's an EXTREMELY STRONG POSSIBILITY that such a section exists in this film. That's a pretty good assessment that can be made <b>WITHOUT SEEING THE FILM</b>, isn't it?
And that segues nicely into all of your allegations that I <b><i>implied</i></b> that people should not see "Columbine". You said: <font color=maroon>"Your condemnation <b>implies</b> your recommendation to NOT see it."</font> and <font color=maroon>"Again, it was <b>implied</b>."</font>
Sorry Charlie, but you are just trying REALLY TOO HARD to read between the lines. I said NO SUCH words, but my (unchangeable) original post is still there for you to scrutinize, if you so desire. Perhaps you are basing your psychic tinglings on Worf's post, but if you try to put words in my mouth, you are bein |
| (continued) | jeskibuff
Aug 3, 2003 5:20 AM | | Perhaps you are basing your psychic tinglings on Worf's post, but if you try to put words in my mouth, you are being just as guilty as Moore is in stuffing words into Heston's mouth. Worf jumped to a conclusion, and you dove in right after him. My "condemnation" was directed at Moore's alleged propaganda techniques. If these allegations are true, then I believe MORE people should see the film in order to realize the lengths and trickery someone will go through to sell their propaganda. Use Moore's own creation to nail him to the wall! Knowledge IS power, isn't it?
<font color=maroon>see the damn thing yourself. Factor in what you care to believe from the Hardy site, factor in Moore's real point and attitude behind the film and THEN, make a decision for yourself based on all this information. Come talk to us about it then.</font>
I plan on seeing it, eventually. There's no big hurry and I will wait for the opportunity to see it FREE. Meanwhile, quit your "high and mighty" routine. I see no reason that I can't talk about it intelligently NOW. |
| Your arguments are incredibly weak | Troy
Aug 3, 2003 10:53 AM | | <i>Troy is a Michael Moore groupie!</i>
Nope. I enjoyed the "Columbine" for what it was; a movie condemning big business greed, unfounded paranoia generated by a money hungry media and a gun industry callously flooding the civillian market with an uncontrollable wave of guns designed only to kill other civillians. I've enjoyed "Roger and Me" as well. I thought his TV show was over the top and broached into "silly" territory, cheapening the message. His "Canadian Bacon" comedy was a turd. Groupie? No.
Frankly, I see you as more of a Hardy groupie.
<i>My well-founded suspicion that the (Hardy) website is more credible is MY only "bias".</i>
Well-founded? Why? Who is this Hardy? Who does HE work for? What are HIS motivations? Is Hardy a lawyer for the NRA? Or GM? Or Dick Clark?
<i>Aren't you saying: "It doesn't matter to me if the film was saturated with instances of lies and deception, I like the result and that's all that's important to me"?? Again, the end justifies the means. Talk about being brainwashed!! </i>
Lies? No. All those things in that movie happened, whether the context was manipulated or not. Deceptions? Maybe, but again, I have to question the individual pointing out the discrepancies in the editing of the film. I still stand by the fact that these editing manipulations (if they happened) have no bearing on the message of the film.
<i>You (or others who saw the movie and are reading this) don't seem to be denying that Moore tried to sell the notion that Lockheed Martin was smuggling their manufactured nasties out under the cover of darkness. You saw the film. Tell me, did Moore NOT make that implication?</i>
No, not at all. It's simply outrageous that you say this without seeing it for yourself. And you have the unmitigated GALL to say "You saw it, what do you think?"
I recommend you see the movie YOUSELF before you make any more such aggressive assumptions. You know what they say about the word assume . . . Well, you're only really making an ass out of U. I'm merely having fun pointing it out.
<i>You seem to bristle at the mere THOUGHT that anybody should question your hero's creation.</i>
No, I bristle at the thought that someone can make imperious assuptions about a movie that he hasn't seen (like the one above) based on a website by an individual who obviously has ulterior motives.
<i> So you think that Heston is arrogant and ignorant because he didn't bother with familiarizing himself with Moore's work? How arrogant and ignorant of YOU to think so! It's a free country and Heston should be able to spend his time however he so chooses.</i>
As the president and spokesman for the NRA? You are damn right he should. The prez of the NRA's full time job is to defend the NRA's stance on guns at all costs. It's Heston JOB to know when he's being potentially set up like that. KNOW YOUR ENEMY! Heston may be able to spend his free-time however he wants, but preparing for an interview by finding out the background of the person interviewing you should be SOP for his job. Heston's a lazy senile coot completely unqualified for the position. How PollyAnna-ish of you to think otherwise, because it was SO obvious on screen. But how could you know unless you actually SAW IT!?!
<i> Just because "Friends" has been a top-rated show doesn't mean that someone who chooses to spend time with their kids instead of watching TV makes them ignorant because they don't know who "Rachel" is. Your screwed-up logic is truly jaw-dropping!</i>
But I've never watched Friends and I don't have children. Who's Rachel? Why is my "logic screwed-up and jaw-dropping" because of this? Your analogies make no sense.
<i> First, are you saying that Hardy wasted his time pointing out such discrepancies?</i>
Yes. Again, you won't really know this unless you see the movie yourself, but like I already said:
"Regardless of these ty |
| The resat of: Your arguments are incredibly weak | Troy
Aug 3, 2003 10:54 AM | | <i> First, are you saying that Hardy wasted his time pointing out such discrepancies?</i>
Yes. Again, you won't really know this unless you see the movie yourself, but like I already said:
"Regardless of these types of liberties Moore allegedy took with putting the film together, it's a question of attitude. Whether Lockheed makes actual war weapons in Littleton doesn't matter. Fact is, you work for Lockheed, you work for a weapons manufacturer. Doesn't matter if you clean toilets in some corporate office in Scranton, you still work under that thumb. As far as I'm concerned, whether Heston's strident and agressive speech happened the week the shootings happened or 8 months later doesn't dispose of the fact that it happened."
Hardy's website is intentioanlly ignoring the big picture that the film presents because that aspect of it is unimpeechable.
<i>You missed a VERY important word in that sentence: "MAY", as in "they MAY be bad people". It sounds to me like you've already pronounced judgment on them.</i>
HEY! I've already seen the movie. And I've read Hardy's nit-picky website. I CAN make that judgement because I've seen both sides. I can make a rational decision based on ALL the information. For whatever reason, you choose to make all your arguments without actually seeing both sides of the story for YOURSELF!
<i>Your mind apparently is already made up. Maybe we can thank Mr. Moore for that?</i>
Yeah, and Hardy's website defending big business, corruption and greed, and your closed-minded unwillingness to make a judgement AFTER considering all the data only confirms that I made the right conclusion.
<i>How can you say this without actually having seen it?
C'mon, Troy...it's RIGHT in front of your face. Did you have to be a part of Jim Jones' Guyana group to understand that the guy was a wacko? Did you have to be a "Heaven's Gate" cult member to understand that there is no spaceship hiding behind the Hale-Bopp comet?</i>
Again, your analogies are coming out of Uranus. How can you compare a movie condemning big business greed, unfounded paranoia generated by a money hungry media and a gun industry callously flooding the civillian market with an uncontrollable wave of guns designed only to kill other civillians? How can you compare that with Jim Jones or Heavens Gate? What's the connection? Oh, wait, I forgot, you haven't SEEN it. You've only read stuff condemning it (no doubt written by defenders of corporate greed and gun manufacturers).
<i> If someone says there's a section in this movie where Heston changes clothes mid-speech AND NO ONE DENIES IT, I think there's an EXTREMELY STRONG POSSIBILITY that such a section exists in this film. That's a pretty good assessment that can be made WITHOUT SEEING THE FILM, isn't it?</i>
No. I've SEEN the movie, I know that the speech where Heston's tie changes really has no bearing on the case that Moore is making with the entire film.
<i>And that segues nicely into all of your allegations that I implied that people should not see "Columbine".</i>
<b>You have not seen it yet you think that you can critique it, ergo, others should be able to as well.</b> You have to do better than this. I can shoot infantile arguments like this down all day long.
<i>You are being just as guilty as Moore is in stuffing words into Heston's mouth.</i>
Heston said all those words.
<i>MORE people should see the film in order to realize the lengths and trickery someone will go through to sell their propaganda. Use Moore's own creation to nail him to the wall! Knowledge IS power, isn't it?</i>
Knowledge is power? How on earth would you know? You don't have all the facts, yet you continue to make your uneducated (in the sense that you have not seen the movie you're talking about) comments about it.
Meanwhile, quit your "high and mighty" routine. I see no reason that I can't talk about i |
| The rest of, the rest of: Your arguments are incredibly weak | Troy
Aug 3, 2003 10:54 AM | | <i>Meanwhile, quit your "high and mighty" routine. I see no reason that I can't talk about it intelligently NOW.</i>
High and Mighty? Look in the mirror, pal. Your last sentance is supremely arrogant. And misinformed. |
| Aw, Troy, <b>NOW</b> look what you've done... | jeskibuff
Aug 4, 2003 4:37 AM | | You've taken away what little motivation that I had to see this film. Talk about spoilers! Now that you've confirmed that these elements are in the film, I no longer feel the impetus to confirm them for myself. That should add at least a couple more months to when I actually see it, unless of course I find it in a friend's library and borrow it.
<font color=maroon>Frankly, I see you as more of a Hardy groupie.</font>
I can handle that. Hardy seems to have the facts down quite accurately. I'll stick with fact and you can stick with fiction. Fair enough?
<font color=maroon>Well-founded? Why? Who is this Hardy? Who does HE work for? What are HIS motivations? Is Hardy a lawyer for the NRA? Or GM? Or Dick Clark?</font>
All his data checks out pretty well. He could be a total moron or a genius, for all I care. It doesn't matter does it?? As long as he puts out a good solid product! So far, I see no detectable flaws with it. What flaws have YOU found, aside from the fact that it puts the credibility of your hero into question?
<font color=maroon>Lies? No. All those things in that movie happened, whether the context was manipulated or not. Deceptions? Maybe, but again, I have to question the individual pointing out the discrepancies in the editing of the film. I still stand by the fact that these editing manipulations (if they happened) have no bearing on the message of the film.</font>
Ah, such rationalization. It doesn't matter as long as it all gets edited slickly enough to look good. Isn't that what you're saying?
<font color=maroon>And you have the unmitigated GALL to say "You saw it, what do you think?"</font>
I was just asking you to verify the fact, Troy. No need to get all huffy about it! But thanks for verifying that IT WAS FACTUAL! That means a lot to me!
<font color=maroon>I recommend you see the movie YOUSELF before you make any more such aggressive assumptions.</font>
I'm certainly hinged on EVERY word you say, Troy! I'll get RIGHT ON IT! <img src="http://www.egri.co.uk/smileys/funny.gif"</img>
<font color=maroon>You know what they say about the word assume . . . Well, you're only really making an ass out of U.</font>
Well, that's not EXACTLY what "they say", is it? But I can see the need to alter the phrase to suit your objectives. Hmmm. Now doesn't THAT technique sound familiar?
<font color=maroon>I bristle at the thought that someone can make imperious assuptions about a movie that he hasn't seen (like the one above) based on a website by an individual who obviously has ulterior motives.</font>
Everybody has motives Troy, including Michael Moore. I don't see Hardy doing anything more than pointing out the tricks that Moore uses. I don't see him shooting down Moore's entire message. I see Moore as the one with the huge ulterior motives. First, there's the desire to make a money-making film. Second, to sucker people like you into believing every word he says, championing a cause which he feels very emotional about. Too bad he can't seem to seperate his emotions from good judgment.
<font color=maroon>I've never watched Friends and I don't have children. Who's Rachel? Why is my "logic screwed-up and jaw-dropping" because of this? Your analogies make no sense.</font>
Silly Troy. Do you REALLY believe that an analogy HAS to pertain to your situation to be valid? It's too bad such a simple analogy went completely over your head. Maybe I'll have to watch a few Sesame Street reruns in order to figure out how to better communicate with you.
<font color=maroon>Hardy's website is intentioanlly ignoring the big picture that the film presents because that aspect of it is unimpeechable.</font>
If it's so unim"peech"able, then why does Moore have to resort to so many tricks in order for him to get his point across? An apple might look good on the outside while it's crawling with worms on the inside. It's good to take a closer look before |
| (continued) | jeskibuff
Aug 4, 2003 4:40 AM | | It's good to take a closer look before you bite. Oops. There I go again with those "complex" analogies!
<font color=maroon>HEY! I've already seen the movie. And I've read Hardy's nit-picky website. I CAN make that judgement because I've seen both sides. I can make a rational decision based on ALL the information. For whatever reason, you choose to make all your arguments without actually seeing both sides of the story for YOURSELF!</font>
Wrongo, Bucko! There seems to be no doubt at all that the elements Hardy says are in the film are <b>IN THE FILM</b>!!! Don't you understand that?? I don't NEED to see the film myself to confirm that the manipulative ploys WERE used. People from BOTH SIDES of this argument agree that they are IN THE FILM! Why do you insist that I have to be an eyewitness to something that everybody already agrees on?
<font color=maroon>Yeah, and Hardy's website defending big business, corruption and greed, and your closed-minded unwillingness to make a judgement AFTER considering all the data only confirms that I made the right conclusion.</font>
Uh...could you direct me to where he's defending "big business, corruption and greed" PLEASE? I seem to have missed that. He seems to have effectively exposed the corruption and greed of your idol, Michael Moore.
<font color=maroon>Again, your analogies are coming out of Uranus.</font>
Wow! Pretty amazing, Troy. Do you want us to believe you came up with that little quip or will you admit to watching a few too many old Saturday Night Live "Todd & Lisa" skits?
<font color=maroon>How can you compare a movie condemning big business greed, unfounded paranoia generated by a money hungry media and a gun industry callously flooding the civillian market with an uncontrollable wave of guns designed only to kill other civillians? How can you compare that with Jim Jones or Heavens Gate? What's the connection?</font>
Simple answer, once again, Troy. It gets a little tiring having to explain EVERYTHING, but you seem to have trouble grasping anything with the least bit of complexity. I'll type REAL S-L-O-W for you. Just pretend that I'm Al Gore talking to you one-on-one.
First Troy, I am not comparing your precious movie to these cults. Got that? Gooooood. You are adamant that Moore's film can only be judged by viewing it. This is like saying that you can only criticize a cult if you join it, isn't it? The problem is that you are defending the film's objective, and I am attacking the dirty ploys used to make that film.
His film-making TECHNIQUES and ploys can be judged. His stories on how he made the film are inconsistent and documented in different interviews with different people. Everything the Hardy website has stated seems to pan out. You "YOUSELF" have confirmed some of those elements.
Consider a murder trial in a courtroom. By your logic, unless the judge WITNESSED the murder, he cannot evaluate the evidence before him. The arresting cop (Michael Moore) has planted evidence in an attempt to frame the defendant. A witness for the prosecution (you) admits that evidence was fabricated, but insist that because the defendant didn't send his mother a birthday card, he is a bad man and deserves everything he has coming to him. The judge (me) is wondering if there's any substance at all to the prosecution's case, especially when they freely admit to tampering with the evidence. But witness Troy insists that because the judge had not witnessed the murder first-hand, he should let the tainted evidence stand, or at least "let's just overlook those little slip-ups, shall we?".
You obviously are letting your emotions control you. You hate big business, the "money-hungry media" and the gun industry, so anything that rallies against it is good, and anything that questions the methods used to attack it is baaaad! As I stated FROM THE BEGINNING, I am not even challenging Moore's arguments (that big business is |
| (continued) | jeskibuff
Aug 4, 2003 4:43 AM | | As I stated FROM THE BEGINNING, I am not even challenging Moore's arguments (that big business is in need of reform, that we have a gun problem that needs attention, etc). I am saying that the methods he uses to PRESENT his argument are bogus, manipulative and deceptive. I recognize that those things are OK in your code of morality. They just aren't that way in MINE!
<font color=maroon>I've SEEN the movie, I know that the speech where Heston's tie changes really has no bearing on the case that Moore is making with the entire film.</font>
Because you simply detest Heston and really don't care if Moore railroads him, true? Maybe someday someone will railroad you and your attitude might change.
<font color=maroon>I can shoot infantile arguments like this down all day long.</font>
Or more evidently, ACT infantile all day long!
<font color=maroon>Heston said all those words. As far as I'm concerned I'm a lazy senile coot completely unqualified to do better than this.</font>
Yep, Heston said all those words and you, Troy, said <b>all</b> those words that I just quoted. Can you deny it? I can point out the sentences for you if you'd like. Yup...just a little glue is all it takes. Yet, you STILL don't get it, do you?
<font color=maroon>You don't have all the facts, yet you continue to make your uneducated (in the sense that you have not seen the movie you're talking about) comments about it.</font>
And just what facts am I missing? The allegations have been made regarding Moore's trickery. Many people have seen the film (including you) and CONFIRMED that these things are in it - that the descriptions provided in the Hardy website are dead accurate. It's a no-brainer, Troy. The difference between you and me is that I see Moore's trickery as fraudulent deception and you see it as artistic "liberties" in filmmaking. It's all about ethics. Some people have them. You apparently aren't one of them. |
| You are on your heels | Troy
Aug 4, 2003 9:54 AM | | <i>Well-founded? Why? Who is this Hardy? Who does HE work for? What are HIS motivations? Is Hardy a lawyer for the NRA? Or GM? Or Dick Clark?
All his data checks out pretty well. He could be a total moron or a genius, for all I care. It doesn't matter does it?? As long as he puts out a good solid product! So far, I see no detectable flaws with it. What flaws have YOU found, aside from the fact that it puts the credibility of your hero into question?</i>
You see no detectable flaws in it? How can you tell if you haven't see the movie? You're taking his word on it. Regardless, what are his REAL motivations? Why do you refuse to address this?
<i>WRT jeskibuff's "smuggling the nasties comment".
I recommend you see the movie YOUSELF before you make any more such aggressive assumptions.
I'm certainly hinged on EVERY word you say, Troy! I'll get RIGHT ON IT!</i>
Answer the QUESTION!
How can anybody take you seriously? I put you on the spot BIG-TIME and you dance and laugh like a fool?
<i> Everybody has motives Troy, including Michael Moore. I don't see Hardy doing anything more than pointing out the tricks that Moore uses. I don't see him shooting down Moore's entire message.</i>
Again, what were Hardy's motivations for doing it? Who paid for the opportunity to debunk Moore? You think he did it for fun? You're being a PollyAnna again. Or perhaps you just refuse to believe that someone other than Moore might have larger, more insidious reasons and motivations.
<i>I've never watched Friends and I don't have children. Who's Rachel? Why is my "logic screwed-up and jaw-dropping" because of this? Your analogies make no sense.
Silly Troy. Do you REALLY believe that an analogy HAS to pertain to your situation to be valid? It's too bad such a simple analogy went completely over your head. Maybe I'll have to watch a few Sesame Street reruns in order to figure out how to better communicate with you.</i>
Well I hate to slap you with it, but the analogy is completely out of context and idiotic and meant to imply that I watch Friends instead of paying attention to the real world. Well, I aint letting it pass, and I notice that you still aint explaining it which leads me to the obvious conclusion that it's designed to try and undermine my integrity. Juvenile.
<i> If it's so unim"peech"able, then why does Moore have to resort to so many tricks in order for him to get his point across? An apple might look good on the outside while it's crawling with worms on the inside. It's good to take a closer look before you bite. Oops. There I go again with those "complex" analogies!</i>
Oh look, now you're making fun of a spellink error. Wow, as if that means anything. Again, you're using juvenile and pointless approaches to undermine me, rather than address <b>all</b> my points in the previous posts.
Another off-point analogy too. And insults! Wow, what is this, high school debating class? Well, do your homework and watch the movie, and ANSWER the questions that are posed to you!!
Like I've said about 13 times already, those supposed editorial adjustments don't hide the fact that those things happened.
<i>There seems to be no doubt at all that the elements Hardy says are in the film are IN THE FILM!!! Don't you understand that?? I don't NEED to see the film myself to confirm that the manipulative ploys WERE used.</i>
No, but you need to see the film to understand that those manipulative ploys don't matter.
<i>People from BOTH SIDES of this argument agree that they are IN THE FILM! Why do you insist that I have to be an eyewitness to something that everybody already agrees on?</i>
You need to see it so that you can see and understand that those editing tricks (if they were in fact, used) have very little bearing on the film as a whole. All you see is a list of alleged transgressions, but they are a VERY small part of the whole |
| You are on your heels- part 2 | Troy
Aug 4, 2003 9:56 AM | | <i> Uh...could you direct me to where he's defending "big business, corruption and greed" PLEASE?</i>
It's implied in the whole reason behind why that site exists. This isn't like pointing out continuity errors in a "Star Trek" movie. It's plainly an attack on Moore's movie designed to blur and denigrate the entire message of the film. And as I've already said 13 times, but which you again refuse to address, the Hardy site is too detailed and too acidic to be anything but an exercise designed to defame the entire film. Hell, you said theat Moore deserves to have his Oscar taken away, based SOLEY on the Hardy website! Preposterous!
Just your refusal to further comment on my point that <b>"You have not seen it yet you think that you can critique it, ergo, others should be able to as well."</b> only shows your continued lack of a foot to stand on WRT your ability read between the lines when it's impugning what YOU choose to believe in, but you want to read an awful lot into these editorial liberties that Moore took without actually seeing them in the context of the film. Can you address this or am I just wasting my time talking to you here? Again.
<i>Simple answer, once again, Troy. It gets a little tiring having to explain EVERYTHING, but you seem to have trouble grasping anything with the least bit of complexity. I'll type REAL S-L-O-W for you. Just pretend that I'm Al Gore talking to you one-on-one</i>
Sorry sonny, your analogies suck. You're being obscure, we can't read your mind here, ya know? You sure spend an awful lot of time slinging insults and precious little time commenting on what I'm actually saying.
<i>You are adamant that Moore's film can only be judged by viewing it. This is like saying that you can only criticize a cult if you join it, isn't it? The problem is that you are defending the film's objective, and I am attacking the dirty ploys used to make that film.</i>
Again with the moronic analogy. NO! It IS different. I've already said why in this thread repeatedly, yet you choose to ignore it or say the entire film is ruined by a few small editiorial manipulations.
<i>The problem is that you are defending the film's objective, and I am attacking the dirty ploys used to make that film.</i>
I'm doing this because the film's objective is not sullied because these editing liberties thet were supposedly taken. OTOH, you have already judged the entire film based soley on a website that chooses to attack it.
<i>Consider a murder trial in a courtroom. By your logic, unless the judge WITNESSED the murder, he cannot evaluate the evidence before him. The arresting cop (Michael Moore) has planted evidence in an attempt to frame the defendant. A witness for the prosecution (you) admits that evidence was fabricated, but insist that because the defendant didn't send his mother a birthday card, he is a bad man and deserves everything he has coming to him. The judge (me) is wondering if there's any substance at all to the prosecution's case, especially when they freely admit to tampering with the evidence. But witness Troy insists that because the judge had not witnessed the murder first-hand, he should let the tainted evidence stand, or at least "let's just overlook those little slip-ups, shall we?".</i>
Oh look, another misguided and erroneous analogy!
Moore didn't "plant" evidence. Everything in that film happened. It was not "fabriacted". There is SO MUCH more content than the meagre evidence in the Hardy site covers in Moore's movie. But how would YOU know?
<i> As I stated FROM THE BEGINNING, I am not even challenging Moore's arguments (that big business is in need of reform, that we have a gun problem that needs attention, etc). I am saying that the methods he uses to PRESENT his argument are bogus, manipulative and deceptive. I recognize that those things are OK in your code of morality. They just aren't that way in MINE!</i>
S |
| You are on your heels- part 3 | Troy
Aug 4, 2003 9:57 AM | | <i> As I stated FROM THE BEGINNING, I am not even challenging Moore's arguments (that big business is in need of reform, that we have a gun problem that needs attention, etc). I am saying that the methods he uses to PRESENT his argument are bogus, manipulative and deceptive. I recognize that those things are OK in your code of morality. They just aren't that way in MINE!</i>
So because of this, you throw out the baby with the bathwater? Oh, but you never saw the baby to know it's true merits, so what do you care?
<i> Because you simply detest Heston and really don't care if Moore railroads him, true? Maybe someday someone will railroad you and your attitude might change.</i>
As I stated before, it's Heston's JOB to KNOW who is going to potentially railroad him. Heston put himself in a position of responsibility as NRA prez, and he shirked it by not knowing who his enemies are. What, the NRA never railroaded anyone or anything? Are they so innocent? You can't have it both ways, sorry.
<i>Heston said all those words. As far as I'm concerned I'm a lazy senile coot completely unqualified to do better than this.
Yep, Heston said all those words and you, Troy, said all those words that I just quoted. Can you deny it? I can point out the sentences for you if you'd like. Yup...just a little glue is all it takes. Yet, you STILL don't get it, do you? </i>
Wrong. Very wrong. This isn't the type of manipulation that went on in the Heston speeches in the movie. They were taken from different locations, but the intent and message in those speeches was NOT changed. See it for yourself.
<i>You don't have all the facts, yet you continue to make your uneducated (in the sense that you have not seen the movie you're talking about) comments about it.
And just what facts am I missing?</i>
How about the entire film?
<i>The allegations have been made regarding Moore's trickery. Many people have seen the film (including you) and CONFIRMED that these things are in it - that the descriptions provided in the Hardy website are dead accurate.</i>
Still, it has no bearing on the entire film. Hardy's points are small and relatively incosequential. If you insist on thinking it does without seeing the film for yourself, well, that's pathetic.
<i>It's a no-brainer, Troy. The difference between you and me is that I see Moore's trickery as fraudulent deception and you see it as artistic "liberties" in filmmaking. It's all about ethics. Some people have them. You apparently aren't one of them.</i>
So now you impugn my ethics? You refuse to hold judgement on this movie until you see it for yourself. Your lack of knowledge of (and your refusal to comment on) shown by your erroneous and obviously biased comment about "Moore tried to sell the notion that Lockheed Martin was smuggling their manufactured nasties out under the cover of darkness." How many other delusions about the film are you under?
And your choices to sling petty insults about spelling or saying I'm too dense to get your pointless and obtuse analogies, yet still refuse to make any REAL comments on:
"Who is this Hardy? Who does HE work for? What are HIS motivations? Is Hardy a lawyer for the NRA? Or GM? Or Dick Clark?"
and
"Regardless of these types of liberties Moore allegedy took with putting the film together, it's a question of attitude. Whether Lockheed makes actual war weapons in Littleton doesn't matter. Fact is, you work for Lockheed, you work for a weapons manufacturer. Doesn't matter if you clean toilets in some corporate office in Scranton, you still work under that thumb. As far as I'm concerned, whether Heston's strident and agressive speech happened the week the shootings happened or 8 months later doesn't dispose of the fact that it happened."
and
"Hardy's website defending big business, corruption and greed, and your closed-minded unwillingness to m |
| You are on your heels- part 4 | Troy
Aug 4, 2003 9:58 AM | | "Hardy's website defending big business, corruption and greed, and your closed-minded unwillingness to make a judgement AFTER considering all the data only confirms that I made the right conclusion."
Big issues in this debate, all ignored or shrugged off by you.
And you question MY ethics? |
| You're ABSOLUTELY RIGHT, Troy! | jeskibuff
Aug 8, 2003 4:32 AM | | I am on my heels. Your density is seemingly impenetrable by logic and reason. At first, I thought that you were just kidding by saying you didn't get some of those simple analogies. I'm supposing it's kind of like a defense mechanism - you know you're wrong but you don't want to admit it, so you have to pretend the argument against your position is full of crap. But now, I'm beginning to think that you REALLY don't understand. It's hard to tell. There's so much braggadocio and machismo involved, isn't there?
There's definitely an intelligence divide here. Is it a matter of left versus right, left-brain versus right-brain, liberal versus conservative? Don't feel bad - you're not alone. Almost every liberal on this planet seems to have the same problem with logic and common sense. Just look at someone like The Troll/Bush Is A Liar. He is pretty much universally regarded as the biggest idiot on this board. If this were "Survivor" Consumer Review, he'd be the FIRST person voted off.
Yeah, it's hard to get a moron to understand something, but hey...I'm tenacious and always hopeful. Maybe I'll give it one last shot and something will sink in. It really doesn't matter anyway. My initial post served its purpose: to let people know what a fraud Michael Moore is so they can evaluate his "work" with that knowledge in hand. There are plenty of intelligent people on this board who probably appreciated the "heads up" on Moore.
Worf said: <font color=maroon>Would you respect me or listen to me if I said Shakespeares works were a load of cobblers and his reputation is wholly undeserved IF I'D NEVER READ A SINGLE SONNETT??? No of course you wouldn't.</font>
This statement clearly shows the misperception that both you and Worf have, Troy. Let's modify it slightly to make it relevant. Let's suppose that somebody had pointed out evidence that Shakespeare had <b>plagiarized</b> many of his sonnets. Say the evidence was clear-cut: a book was published before William S. was born and had each sonnet in it, word for word. Does a person need to read the entire work in order to determine if the allegation of plagiarization is true or not? Just discovering that ONE sonnet is word-for-word should cause suspicion. Discovering that several are identical should put the nail in Shakespeare's coffin - that he plagiarized his material!
Is that saying the material isn't good? NOPE. It's saying that Shakespeare is a fraud, isn't it? You can't seem to separate these two facets, Troy. I call "Shakespeare" a fraud based on the evidence, but you love the sonnets SO MUCH that you insist that <b>I'm</b> a fool and that I'm "condemning" them before reading the entire volume. I say that the sonnets themselves are not the issue, but that <b>plagiarism is WRONG</b> and should cast a new light upon Shakespeare. But you insist on questioning the motivation of the person who documented the evidence against Shakespeare. I say it doesn't matter - the evidence is solid and irrefutable. Whether the accuser had a personal vendetta against Shakespeare or desired vengence for the person whose material was stolen DOESN'T MATTER. THE EVIDENCE SHOWS it was plagiarized, beyond a shadow of a doubt! The sonnets may be beautiful, but I am not questioning their worth, just the credentials and motives of the "author". Should he be so exalted and revered if people knew he had stolen the works of others?
You say that the person who provided the detail about the evidence "wasted his time". The person (representing Hardy) took too much effort to dig up the publishing history of the book. "Hardy" did that so there would be no doubt of its authenticity, but you INSIST that its an indication of Hardy's zealotry. If Hardy HADN'T taken the effort, then you would be complaining that he didn't do his homework, wouldn't you? It's just impossible to win with people like you, isn't it?
Okay...example over. Before someone goes ballis |
| (continued) | jeskibuff
Aug 8, 2003 4:35 AM | | Before someone goes ballistic, THIS WAS JUST AN EXAMPLE. I AM NOT accusing Shakespeare of plagiarizing! GOT THAT??? Also, I predict that you won't grasp that Shakespeare analogy either. You'll make SOME excuse for its relevance - that Moore plagiarize NO ONE. That will just continue the pattern that you have of just totally failing to recognize the point made by a simple analogy.
You also said:<font color=maroon>judging a movie (or book or art piece or whatever) purely because it might impinge upon one's religeous beliefs or political ideology without actually witnessing the potentially offensive sections for one's self DOES smack of blindered closed-mindedness.</font>
This statement clearly demonstrates your terrible reading comprehension problem. For if you had <b>READ</b> my original post, you would have seen this: <font color=blue>when it comes to gun control, I am swayed more towards the views shared by liberals</font>. So Troy, how can "Columbine" impinge upon my ideology about gun control when I clearly stated FROM THE BEGINNING that I am more in line with the liberal ideology that Moore is pushing? Now if I had stated that I was AGAINST gun control, you may have had a point, but <b>how can I be close-minded to something that I already believe in?</b> Of course, after this little episode, I'm beginning to think that some of my positions on gun control need to be revised. If they're in line with Moore's ideology, there's PROBABLY something wrong with them.
Now on to respond to your latest rantings...
<font color=maroon>You see no detectable flaws in it? How can you tell if you haven't see the movie? You're taking his word on it. Regardless, what are his REAL motivations? Why do you refuse to address this?</font>
It's really quite SIMPLE...what has been attested by Hardy has been confirmed by multiple sources. But...we've been over this many times before...why do I bother repeating it? As stated in the Shakespeare example, the motivation of the person does not matter a whole lot if there is irrefutable evidence of fraud being committed. The guy could have hated Shakespeare, but the original book of sonnets is evidence that can stand on its own. And I HAVE addressed your question, Troy. You just either have lousy reading comprehension or choose to ignore what you don't like as my answer.
<font color=maroon>Answer the QUESTION!</font>
Don't blow a fuse, Troy. First, there IS no question there. Second, I have responded to your questions. You just don't have the ability to COMPREHEND!
<font color=maroon>I put you on the spot BIG-TIME and you dance and laugh like a fool?</font>
Next time American Idol does another competition, watch the very first few episodes. You'll see a lot of people who think that they REALLY have talent, when they actually are nut cases. People actually YELL at them: "YOU CAN'T SING. YOU'RE THE WORST SINGER IN THE WORLD". Yet, they STILL believe they are something special; that they are talented. You remind me of them, Troy. You really THINK you put me on the spot BIG TIME???? Your lack of logic and reasoning is so pathetic that there is very little left to do but laugh about it and make fun of it. You can't grasp simple associations. You can't understand a simple analogy. You don't have the ability to dissociate one argument from a second argument. Again, I think this is attributed to left-brain/right-brain differences. You and I are worlds apart logically because you think with your emotions and cannot remove them from your argument. I don't have the power to extract that emotion from your reasoning, so we just sit here and shout at each other. You don't understand what I say, because as soon as you read it, you attach it to YOUR argument. You are unable to separate the two arguments. I find myself repeating things over and over, but it really does no good.
perhaps you just refuse to believe that someone other than |
| (continued) | jeskibuff
Aug 8, 2003 4:38 AM | | <font color=maroon>perhaps you just refuse to believe that someone other than Moore might have larger, more insidious reasons and motivations.</font>
Who said that? I <b>SAID</b> I believe he has motivations. Again, your reading comprehension is ridiculous. As for his motivations, I believe they're the same as mine. I don't like to see such injustice and deception. Anybody trying to sell their propaganda should have their methods exposed, in my opinion. It's really THAT simple, but I don't expect that you'll understand. See, you first have to believe that injustice and deception are WRONG. It's apparent that you do not.
<font color=maroon>Well I hate to slap you with it, but the analogy is completely out of context and idiotic and meant to imply that I watch Friends instead of paying attention to the real world.</font>
There you go again. Intelligent people GET the analogy, Troy. Intelligent people UNDERSTAND that there was NOTHING in my words that implicated YOU, Troy. Just to remind you, here is what <b>I</b> actually said:
<font color=blue>Just because "Friends" has been a top-rated show doesn't mean that someone who chooses to spend time with their kids instead of watching TV makes them ignorant because they don't know who "Rachel" is. </font>
I clearly said "someone who chooses..." and you read it as "you choose". I don't know why I'm even bothering defending this stuff at this level. Really, it's like talking to a child! Who is the real fool here, Troy? NOT ME. Your reading comprehension and lack of intellect is abyssmal! And/or maybe your paranoia is extremely high?
<font color=maroon>you're using juvenile and pointless approaches to undermine me, rather than address all my points in the previous posts.</font>
It's just fun pointing out your MANY mistakes, Troy. It obviously does no good in trying to have an intelligent discussion with you. You rode in on Worf's horse with your guns a'blazin and refuse to acknowledge even ONE POINT where you're clearly in the wrong. I have lucidly responded to all your points in an attempt to communicate with you, but I might as well be trying to reason with a grapefruit. I have taken my level of communication down as low as I can go, but your skull is way too thick! I can't go much lower than an analogy, but you can't even understand THOSE! Thus, the "Al Gore" comment. Al Gore talks to adults as if they were children. I tried doing this with you, but I gave up too early. I just don't know any other way to get the message through and I don't have the patience to explain things at the second-grade level. You're TOO DENSE! I give up! You've got me on my heels, FOR SURE! I concede!
<font color=maroon>do your homework and watch the movie, and ANSWER the questions that are posed to you!!</font>
And like I've said "13 times": <b>it's not necessary</b> to watch the movie to realize that Michael Moore used fraud and deception in the film. And what questions have I failed to answer? BE SPECIFIC NOW, AND LIST THEM!!!
<font color=maroon>No, but you need to see the film to understand that those manipulative ploys don't matter.</font>
Again, you are unable to separate two distinct arguments here.
Argument #1 (my argument): Michael Moore used fraudulent and deceptive tactics in making "Bowling for Columbine"
Argument #2 (your argument): Despite the acknowledged fact that Moore used fraud and deception to mislead his audience, the film has a message that I (Troy) think is valuable.
The point of my original post was to point out the fraudulent and deceptive tactics. IT DOESN'T NECESSITATE SEEING THE FILM to realize that they were employed, does it? Now, whether those tactics factored in to the whole film or not IS A DIFFERENT STORY. That, I will admit INVOLVES SEEING THE FILM!!! Again, I will see it and make that evaluation AT MY CONVENIENCE! I continue to defend my argument #1 and you continue |
| (continued) | jeskibuff
Aug 8, 2003 4:40 AM | | I continue to defend my argument #1 and you continue to twist my defense to apply to your argument #2. DO YOU UNDERSTAND????? <b><font color=red>CAN</font> YOU UNDERSTAND????</b>
<font color=maroon>It's implied in the whole reason behind why that site exists</font>
You make <b>WAY</b> too many implications, Troy. You've wrongly implied several things from what I have written and you're making a BIG assumption about why Hardy put it together. You implied that I didn't like the politics of the movie when I <b>CLEARLY STATED</b> in my original post that I was slanted more <b>TOWARDS</B> stricter gun control laws. Stop the implications, Troy. They make you look EVEN MORE foolish, if that's at all possible!
<font color=maroon>This isn't like pointing out continuity errors in a "Star Trek" movie. It's plainly an attack on Moore's movie designed to blur and denigrate the entire message of the film.</font>
Those clearly aren't continuity errors that the film editors "just overlooked" and can be chalked up to human error. Moore is leading people around by their emotions. By distorting the facts and pasting together sentences, he is potentially deceiving his audience. The pasting together of Heston's speech is CLEARLY deceptive. Maybe by itself, it didn't have a bit of influence on you, but if this is what can be DOCUMENTED, <b>what other trickery</b> did Moore use that is tougher to prove? Hardy probably barely scratched the surface!
<font color=maroon>Can you address this or am I just wasting my time talking to you here? Again.</font>
I <b>HAVE</b> addressed it. Learn how to comprehend what you read, willya?
<font color=maroon>So because of this, you throw out the baby with the bathwater?</font>
NOPE. YOU'RE saying I'm throwing out the baby with the bathwater. If you knew how to COMPREHEND WHAT YOU'RE READING, maybe you wouldn't be so confused!
<font color=maroon>What, the NRA never railroaded anyone or anything? Are they so innocent?</font>
Ah! Some more of your warped ethics are exposed. To you, it's OK to railroad someone if they are leading a whole organization where someone WITHIN that organization once railroaded someone else, past or present! Let each person be responsible for their OWN choices, Troy. You certainly wouldn't want to be blamed for a crime that your errand boy committed, would you? Oops. Again...sorry....that's another one of those "complicated" analogies I'm famous for, isn't it?
<font color=maroon>This isn't the type of manipulation that went on in the Heston speeches in the movie. They were taken from different locations, but the intent and message in those speeches was NOT changed.</font>
It <b>MOST CERTAINLY WAS</b> changed. But since you obviously hadn't bothered reading and analyzing the actual quotes and noting the differences, <b>HOW WOULD YOU KNOW???</b> What a hypocrite you are!
<font color=maroon>yet (you) still refuse to make any REAL comments on:
"Who is this Hardy? Who does HE work for? What are HIS motivations? Is Hardy a lawyer for the NRA? Or GM? Or Dick Clark?"</font>
(sigh) If you KNEW HOW TO READ, you would have seen these words above: "All his data checks out pretty well. He could be a total moron or a genius, for all I care. It doesn't matter does it?? As long as he puts out a good solid product!" A fact is a fact is a fact, Troy. Whether a moron documented it or Einstein himself did, IT'S STILL A FACT. Whether Hardy is mad that Moore stole his childhood sweetheart or whether he was hired by GM or the NRA, what was documented IS STILL AN UNDENIABLE FACT isn't it? |
| (continued) | jeskibuff
Aug 8, 2003 4:47 AM | | Your spin on the Lockheed issue is NOT worth commenting on, but I will, just because I can afford to waste a couple more minutes. Moore was citing a SPECIFIC INSTANCE of moving weaponry out of Littleton in the dead of night <b>TO ACHIEVE A POLITICAL GOAL</B>. CAN YOU DENY THAT? Why would he put it in such a film if he wasn't trying to make such a point? The charge against Lockheed was determined to be patently false on SEVERAL levels; it was a lie, a deception. There were no weapons manufactured there. There was no intent to sneak those "weapons" out in the dead of the night. Yet, you try to justify Moore's lie by spreading the "guilt" throughout the Lockheed Martin organization. You imply that because they DO build weapons of war, that that is a BAAAAAD thing. I hate to tell you, but there can be no peace in a world full of evil if we didn't equip ourselves with "weapons of war". But I will stop there because this subject will open a whole new can of worms. I've already spent too much time on this thread.
<font color=maroon>Big issues in this debate, all ignored or shrugged off by you.</font>
NOPE. Those are issues BEYOND the original subject that was posted. It said NOTHING about big business. It said NOTHING about corruption. Again, your inability to separate the topics is clearly the problem. The original post was about <b>DECEPTIVE TACTICS MADE BY MICHAEL MOORE</b> in his film-making. It was quickly twisted by you and Worf into Nazi book burning and all the OTHER off-topic tangents. All my responses have been to defend my original post. All you and Worf (and the brain-dead Troll) have done is try to justify your initial attacks on that post. I understand you wanting to try to change the subject, but I won't let that happen.
Maybe you and the BushIsALiar/Troll can put your heads together and try to pool your IQ points. Maybe together you can outscore that grapefruit!
My original post was made to serve ONE PURPOSE: to alert other people about the possibility of fraud and deception in Michael Moore's filmmaking. I'm confident that it has DEFINITELY served that purpose. I'm sure that many people have read this (in whole or in part) and will view Moore's films now with a lot more skepticism. Instead of being suckered in by his tactics, they may walk away satisfied that they were smart enough to view it with a more critical eye. More importantly, they won't be sold on the propaganda IF THEY DETERMINE THAT IT <b>IS</b> PROPAGANDA. I'll be happy to know that a few people are more "aware" and hope that they'll spread the news. Maybe by the time that "Fahrenheit 911" comes out, a lot more people will look at THAT film with a skeptical eye.
As for this thread, unless I get some kind of intelligent response back where you want to discuss instead of accost, I think I'll bow out now. So, if you want to "really REALLY put me on my heels", here's your opportunity to make it look REALLY convincing, knowing that I won't waste any more of my time with a response. This is just a pissing contest now. There have been enough insults thrown around that it would be impossible to attempt to have a civil conversation anymore. I'm always ready to give things the "old college try" though, so if you're interested into taking things back to "square one", I'd be willing to do so as well. |
| Corrections | jeskibuff
Aug 11, 2003 11:25 AM | | In re-reading my last post, I found some things that I could have said better or did not come out the way they were intended.
I said:
<font color=blue>Moore was citing a SPECIFIC INSTANCE of moving weaponry out of Littleton</font>
I should have said: <font color=maroon>Moore was citing a SPECIFIC ROUTINE of moving weaponry out of Littleton</font>
"Routine" is still not the best choice of words, but an instance is a one-time occurrence.
Regarding the analogy on "Friends", I hastily defended it with these words:<font color=blue>I clearly said "someone who chooses..." and you read it as "you choose".</font>. I should have taken a few more minutes and given that a closer look. The main problem is that Troy had taken the analogy too personally, when it was presented as a generalization. Troy, you DIDN'T substitute "you" for "someone", but you DID make the SIMILAR mistake of applying the analogy to yourself. Again, this is the problem of having to defend a simple analogy. I ended tripping up on the words defending it. The analogy itself remains solid and its misinterpretation by Troy is still a fact. All it says is that people have differing interests and priorities in their lives. I couldn't tell a Tori Amos song from one by Jewel. I therefore am an ignoramus in the eyes of most 17-year-old girls.
I'm sure there are other similar mistakes that I've made. I just caught these 2 and wanted to correct them. |
| woh woh woh! hold on!! there reaIly IS no space ship behind hale-bopp? :D -nt | Kam
Aug 3, 2003 1:46 PM | | |
| Sorry Kam... | jeskibuff
Aug 4, 2003 4:21 AM | | I wish you'd known that BEFORE you ate that "applesauce"!  |
| bottom line, when all is said and done | Bush Is A Liar
Aug 4, 2003 9:02 AM | | jeskibuff is a blithering idiot. you'd be better off just skipping any posts under that name. |
| Yeah, I suppose . . . | Troy
Aug 4, 2003 9:59 AM | | . . . but I'm having some fun making him look like a moron. |
| Yeah, I suppose . . . | Bush Is A Liar
Aug 4, 2003 10:06 AM | | i know what you mean. have fun ol bean! |
| More goodies about Moore's work of fictition... | jeskibuff
Aug 10, 2003 5:48 AM | | A friend emailed me a link to Reagan bulletin board (http://www.ronaldreagan.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php) and while exploring it this morning, I found some more interesting stuff on "Columbine".
There's this site: http://www.revoketheoscar.com
...and this one: http://www.moorewatch.com which documented a humorous hacking of Moore's own website. It seems some other people found Hardy's documentation to be convincing:
<img src="http://www.moorewatch.com/images/uploads/moorehack.jpg">
But here's another article that reiterates many of Hardy's findings and adds a few more goodies.
http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel040403.asp
Here are a few excerpts:
<font color=blue>
After blaming Lockheed for 13 deaths at Columbine, the film moves on to blaming the United States government for 3,000 deaths on September 11. It does this by arguing that <b>we got what we deserved</b>, because our nation revels in the killing of civilians by air.
.
.
.
Moore thus confirms the absurdity of the blame-America-first position popular among the Hollywood Left, by showing that such views require the ignoring of obvious facts such as the difference between financial aid to a dictatorship and humanitarian aid to refugees, or between fighting enemy pilots and perpetrating war crimes against civilians.
.
.
.
On the one hand, Bowling works the audience into self-righteous anger at "the media" for using cheap sensationalism to promote fear. At the very same time, <b>the film uses </b> you guessed it <b> cheap sensationalism</b> to promote fear. <b>The very techniques which he decries in the media, Moore uses himself</b>, with obvious approval from the audience.
.
.
.
Even while denouncing Americans for being so afraid of violent crime, Bowling for Columbine works hard to make them still more afraid.
.
.
.
In this way, Bowling subverts its own audience. To participate in Bowling's emotional journey is to surrender to the very same mendacious hate- and fear-mongering that the movie purports to criticize.
|
| Well, I saw the movie and I was WRONG! | jeskibuff
Sep 8, 2003 4:55 AM | | I said I wouldn't drop a dime on it, but it looks like I wasn't able to keep to that promise. I went with the 30-day trial version of Wal-Mart's DVD rental system and upgraded from the (totally free) 2-disc-at-a-time program to the 4-disc-at-a-time one. That cost me $6.69, including tax. I would have to get about 70 movies to get "Bowling" for less than a dime. That's pretty much impossible to do in one month. Still, I've been able to turn around the selections rather quickly, so even at a theoretical 4 per week, it would be just 42 cents per rental! I'm having a movie marathon month!!
For a moment, I feared that I would have to pay $17 for "Bowling". Wal-Mart said they sent it out on 8/22, but it took over a week to arrive, with some of my other selections beating it to my mailbox. I thought it gotten lost in the mail and I would end up footing the bill for a replacement disc. Now wouldn't that have been a total insult??
So, while I wasn't able to keep to my goal of not funding Moore's propaganda machine, the Wal-Mart trial was a good opportunity for me to rent it and if he gets 2 cents out of the forty-some cents paid, that won't bother me too much.
I watched the movie twice. The first time was uninterrupted. The second time, I took notes, stopping, rewinding and transcribing some words. I got different impressions both times.
For instance, the first time through, I thought that it was a stretch to say that focusing on the "Foreign Object Free" sign in the Lockheed-Martin facility was suggesting that our missiles were intended for foreigners and not for Americans. This was the assertion of the Kopel article I previously linked to. The second time through, I could see the connection, though it wasn't very obvious. During the first viewing of Heston's interview I couldn't help but notice him getting fidgety and nervous. The second time through, I saw how Moore was controlling the conversation and blindsiding Heston. No, Heston wasn't expecting to get into that kind of conversation - he probably expected another "fluff" interview by another "adoring fan". He was seated with movie posters behind him.
<img src="http://gallery.consumerreview.com/webcrossing/images/Heston.jpg">
Moore hit him with some purposely inaccurate assaults and caught him off guard. If Heston knew the details, he could have met Moore's assault head-on, but he got suckered into believing what Moore said was true - AND IT WASN'T! It was a low-down dirty trick on Moore's part.
I didn't realize that I would be so offended just seconds after the movie started. Moore's narration says: <font color=maroon>"It was the morning of April 20th, 1999 and it was pretty much like any other morning in America. The farmer did his chores. The milkman made his deliveries. The President bombed another country whose name we couldn't pronounce."</font> From the opening moments of the film, Moore manages to alienate and offend rational people with his message. He proves himself to be just another left-wing loudmouth who hasn't a clue about the world around him. Jack70 nailed it precisely when he said: <font color=maroon>"Moore has no real solutions to his world-view, his facts & logic are (o)ften wrong"</font>!
He goes on to try to associate the Columbine massacre with the Kosovo bombing (ordered by Clinton). We see Clinton addressing the nation about the bombing, then a large banner across the screen announces "ONE HOUR LATER" to indicate the "coincidental timing" of the Columbine incident. Does Moore expect that we'll buy this association? Is he saying that Columbine was inspired by the violence of war? Any reasonable person should know that the murderous acts committed by the two morons couldn't possibly have been planned and executed within that short period of time. They had placed weapons and bombs far in advance of their attack. So is Moore just relying on a stupid and gullible audience to sell his p |
| (continued) | jeskibuff
Sep 8, 2003 4:56 AM | | So is Moore just relying on a stupid and gullible audience to sell his propaganda?
Then Moore takes us to the little town of Oscoda, Michigan near where James Nichols (the brother of Terry Nichols, convicted Oklahoma City/Murrah Federal Building bomber) lives. James is clearly a nut case and Moore manages to find several more bizarre human specimens in the area, probably guided by the FBI's research into the OK city bombing. One such wacko (named D.J.) owned a copy of "The Anarchist's Cookbook", a publication devoted to educating others on how to build bombs and mix up batches of napalm. Moore seems to want to associate the irrationality of these fruit-loops to the military presence in the town. He says "20% of all the bombs dropped in the 1991 Gulf war were dropped from planes stationed in Oscoda". So again, Moore seems to want to sell us on the idea that nutballs are a product of the war machine. Sorry Moore, but there are looney-tunes EVERYWHERE. Consider that there are also military bases ALL OVER the country, so that makes it convenient for Moore to try to link the two together to suit his agenda.
The interview with the Lockheed-Martin spokesman seemed indicative of Moore's technique. Does he really think he's doing serious investigative reporting as he interviews PUBLIC RELATIONS people? It's typical for corporations to hire pretty faces and people with "upbeat, optimistic dispositions" to represent their image to the outside world. Does Moore think that he got anything of value out of the Lockheed Martin spokesman's speculation of the causes behind the Columbine tragedy? You'd hear the same thing from thousands of other ordinary people who were asked the same questions. It looked more like an opportunity to get some film footage of a missile to me. Notice that Moore refers to the missile as "WMD". A rocket used to launch satellites into space is a "Weapon of Mass Destruction"? Do you think all Americans are THAT stupid, Michael?
Soon after that, Moore transitions into the suggestion that Lockheed Martin is transporting these "WMDs" at night "while the children of Columbine" sleep. I thought I had been especially prepared for this scene, but still was aghast at what a blatant lie it was. He tries to compare his concoction of an evil and deceptive missile-producing corporation to the sweet innocence of sleeping children. Rational and fair-minded people should be utterly repulsed by such manipulation!
Soon thereafter, he tries to associate the Columbine school violence to the war machine found in Colorado. L/M is one of Littleton's major employers. You have the Rocky Flats facility in Arvada that produced weapons-grade plutonium. He mentions the NORAD facility (in Colorado Springs) and nuclear missile silos that "dot the Colorado landscape". Big deal, Michael. There are similar installations across the country (although NORAD is unique). Are there histories of Columbine-style school killings in <b>EACH</b> of THOSE areas?
I believe the biggest manipulation of the audience occurs right after the Columbine tragedy is detailed. There is film footage from various security cameras showing the pandemonium going on in the school during the killing spree. Then some eyewitness girls are interviewed, apparently soon after they escaped from the school. One bawling girl says: <font color=maroon>"I started screaming and crying and telling them not to shoot me and so he shot the girl. He shot her in the head in front of me. And he shot the black kid. Because he was black."</font>
<img src="http://gallery.consumerreview.com/webcrossing/images/BawlingGirl.jpg">
At this point in the film, anyone with a beating heart HAS to have sympathy for these poor girls who will have to live with that awful memory for the REST OF THEIR LIVES! |
| (continued) | jeskibuff
Sep 8, 2003 4:58 AM | | But Master Of Manipulation Michael Moore knows <b>exactly</b> where he has led his audience, so he IMMEDIATELY cuts from the sweet mourning innocence of young crying girls to the determined voice of Charleton Heston emphatically saying <font color=maroon>"I have only five words for you: FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS"</font>. This is textbook manipulation of the audience. Not only does Moore play the audience like puppets, he uses a LIE to do it! The speech IS from a later convention, the change of his clothing is undeniable. Another clever edit can be detected by the sudden loss of reverberation/echo effect from one sentence to another. We know from Hardy's documentation which important words were edited out. Moore should be ashamed by this trickery and anyone who once believed in him and has any concern for the truth should feel totally insulted. Near the end of Heston's Denver speech, he says <font color=blue>"Those who are hostile towards us will lie in wait to seize on a soundbite out of context".</font> I bet he didn't expect that to happen to THAT VERY SPEECH!
Then moron Matt Stone (one of the creators of "South Park") is interviewed and drives home Moore's point that the NRA convention in Denver was a callous insult to the tragedy and an act of arrogance on the part of the NRA. Why doesn't Moore explain the details about the convention and give them a bit of the truth? Because it wouldn't suit his agenda and would spoil the LIE, that's why! WHAT A FRAUD!
Marilyn Manson's interview was full of left-wing feel-good blather and theory. One of his "brilliant" concepts is that if people are kept afraid, they will consume more. This fits nicely into Moore's mantra that businesses are all evil and greedy and out to exploit the unsuspecting consumer. Moore just nods his head in agreement with Manson's simplistic hogwash. Then, like all left-wingers he tries to get people to think that he's smarter than all the rest. Moore asks him: <font color=maroon>"What would you tell the killers if they were alive today?"</font> Manson repies <font color=maroon>"I wouldn't say a word to them. I'd listen to what they have to say, and that's what no one did".</font> Gag me! He reduces the motive behind the killings to a simplistic "no one listens to me" syndrome, one which HE apparently believes he could have cured! Does he REALLY think no one ever listened to Harris & Klebold? Of course, there IS some merit in what he says, but IT'S JUST NOT THAT SIMPLE, is it? It's especially hypocritical when it comes from someone who profits as he encourages anti-social behavior in that very same age group.
The cartoon segment in the film is especially repugnant. It is all founded on the baseless theory that fear is what motivates white Americans. Moore says the pilgrims were afraid of being persecuted. They were scared by native American 'savages'. They were afraid of each other during the Salem witch trials. They were afraid of freed slaves. Well, some of these are not trivial things to be afraid of. Afraid of a little persecution? Don't non-whites have the same fears, or are all the Cuban raft trips to Florida just contrived government propaganda? Some of the other "fears" are just simplistic exaggerations of more complex issues. Moore says "Remember all the Y2K scares? Weren't we told that our very society was about to collapse because somebody forgot to type in a couple of digits on the computer?...After sending the country into a panic, the clock struck midnight and NOTHING happened." Well, while Moore is partially right in that the Y2K problem was overhyped, he ignores the FACT that because there WERE warnings issued, companies invested heavily in preventing problems from occurring. The warnings AVERTED what could have been a major headache. They served a useful purpose and that was to prevent a potential catastrophe. That purpose was NOT to instill fear in the populace! |
| (continued) | jeskibuff
Sep 8, 2003 5:00 AM | | This is similar to the left-wing inability to understand the "war on terror". Every day that goes by WITHOUT a terror attack on America is a testament to the success of that war. It's easy for left-wingers to say that the war just keeps Americans in fear, but they simply DON'T UNDERSTAND. Similarly, a good measure of being a good driver is your accident history. Has it been a week since your last incident or twenty years? The best measure of a good driver is by what has <b>NOT</b> happened, isn't it? Moore's trivialization of the Y2K scare just indicates another level of his simpleminded stupidity.
Moore continues on the "fear" theme. He talks about razor blades in Halloween candy (an urban legend, according to him), the perils of getting clothing caught in moving escalators and other dangers that have been overly hyped by the media. He faults the media for getting America scared. While this is true to a certain extent, sometimes I think the media DOESN'T DO ENOUGH to inform the public of dangers. Do they warn the public about the many internet scams - the Nigerian frauds and the eBay shysters? Maybe on occasion, but not nearly enough. Do YOU or people you know understand that jumping a car battery incorrectly can cause it to explode, spewing caustic acid all over your face and into your eyes? How many people know that following a careless procedure while filling a tank of gas can leave you engulfed in flames?
Moore then transitions into talking about the fear America has for black males. Several rapid-fire excepts of news reporters commentaries has the phrase "by a black male" repeated often enough that you CAN'T escape the point being made. Moore is of course, blaming media hype and sensationalism for pinning the blame for most crimes on black males. While I will admit that murders, rapes and bank robberies get MORE news coverage than does something like an embezzlement scheme, the "tantalizing" crimes DO get the SAME coverage when they're committed by white perpetrators. Moore wants us to believe that it's just media fear-mongering; a nationwide conspiracy against black males. Is he ignoring the possibility that perhaps the bulk of these crimes really <b>ARE</b> being committed by black males? From everything I've seen, that appears to be true. Moore then talks about the Susan Smith case, where this white woman puts her young children in the back of her Mazda Protege and runs the car into a lake. She concocts a story that a black man stole her car, but the truth eventually became known. Moore focuses on this, but ignores the fact that the reason she CHOSE a black male as her scapegoat was because it provided consistency with current crime statistics and therefore offered the most credibility. Moore (like most liberals) doesn't really care about searching for the true root causes, but instead prefers to play the politically-correct games. Blame America. Blame white people. Blame the government. AND ignore anything that MIGHT prove you wrong.
The most interesting thing about the movie in my opinion was the assertion that Canadians feel overwhelmingly safe in their country: safe enough to leave the doors of their homes always unlocked. Moore attributes this to the lack of fear-mongering by the local news media. I have no reason to believe this is untrue, despite the fact that I now distrust most anything that Moore tries to push. I could see him arranging the scenes where he walks into other people's homes, unannounced, just as he staged the gun purchase segment at the very beginning of the film. That might serve as an impetus for some thieves to drive a trailer truck to Toronto, pack it full of goodies culled from open houses and fence the stuff back in America. Wouldn't the Canadians REALLY be thrilled with Moore if that happened?
The overwhelming impression I got from this film was that Moore wants to be perceived as a hero. He wants people to think that he's out to he |
| (continued) | jeskibuff
Sep 8, 2003 5:02 AM | | He wants people to think that he's out to help the little guy from being raped by Big Business and being manipulated by the media. He wants us to get the impression that he's the unassuming Clark Kent fighting for Truth, Justice and The American Way! The big problem he has is that he's tossed Truth and Justice out the window! You can't accuse other people of being lying scoundrels when you are guilty of being a lying scoundrel yourself. That's just plain hypocritical. Moore rallies against media manipulation as he manipulates using the medium at HIS disposal.
Moore foments hatred with his manipulation. I'm sure he's proud that he's misled thousands of people into unjustified hatred of other human beings. This is an excerpt of a message he received from a fan, and published on his own website:
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?messageDate=2003-01-07
A schoolteacher took her class to see the movie twice and said: <font color=maroon>"by the end, they <b>hated</b> Charlton Heston and booed when they heard 'from my cold, dead hands' for the second time... I have no doubt that even the most conservative among them will rethink their positions on gun control, war, 'President' Bush, and the atrocities suffered by so many at the hands of our government. They were especially impressed by the idea that it is fear that runs the engine of capitalism -- something that had never occurred to them before. You have helped to create better citizens. You have helped to create better human beings. Yours truly, J.M., English Teacher, Angola, NY"</font> Well, they may hate Heston now, but when they find out the truth, they will hate Moore for deceiving them. Something tells me this brainwashed numbnuts teacher won't be the one who tells them that they've been duped! Unfortunately, something tells me that Moore's film is succeeding at creating thousands of little mindless idiots like these gullible "better citizens". Something tells me that Troy STILL doesn't see <b>or care to see</b> the wrong in this manipulation.
The end of the movie shows a pathetic disheveled Moore leaving the picture of murdered Kayla Rowland outside Heston's home. He wants the audience to believe that Heston didn't care a bit about the adorable little girl and that sadly HE is one of the few caring individuals who does. Anyone who lies and twists the truth in the way that Moore has done THROUGHOUT this film DOES NOT truly care about her, or he would have pursued the REAL CAUSES and not left out important details such as the history of the murderer's uncle and his own school bully reputation.
Hardy's accusations are RIGHT ON! Kay Hymowitz's article was dead accurate. Troy could only call it "cynical and misguided" - he could not get specific about what was wrong with it BECAUSE IT WAS ACCURATE! Kopel's article was on shaky ground with the accusation of the "foreign object" association, but a closer look revealed that IT TOO was not at fault. The big turd is Moore's work of "fictition" - a collection of left-wing lies and deceptions.
I've attempted to ensure the accuracy of much of what I have quoted, but don't have the time to double-check EVERYTHING. I've already corrected a couple of errors, but there may be more that I've missed. Consider those to be paraphrases, like the "20% of all bombs" quote. I'm not sure it ends "in Oscoda" or "the military bases" or "the area". It may not be worded PRECISELY, but it's all the same idea.
Anyway, spread the word! See the movie (try to see it for free) and judge for yourself. The next time they give out Academy Awards, I hope to see them prying Moore's statuette from his clutches. |
| I can't stands no more!!! | Keith from Canada
Sep 17, 2003 11:55 AM | | Believe it or not, I've managed to read your response to Moore's work and have been on the edge of jumping in with my own thoughts but have refrained...until now. First off, I would point out that you are reading FAR too much into your deconstruction of Moore's work. It is not a thesis, it's a social commentary designed to invoke questions in those who see it -- which it obviously did given your intense interest in it. As a thesis, I too would give this a failing grade...as a social commentary however, it works very well. People will see it and start thinking...that is what a film like this SHOULD do IMO.
The part that bothers me most is when you state that "This is similar to the left-wing inability to understand the "war on terror". Every day that goes by WITHOUT a terror attack on America is a testament to the success of that war." -- This is a HUGE error in logic and one that cannot be supported in any way, shape or form. I am sure that even after you wrote this you realized just how utterly indefensible your position was...especially given the fact that terror attacks are going on everyday throughout the Middle East on American interests. If you choose to look at success or failure in simplistic terms, the American soldiers dying in Iraq everyday would be a testament to the failure of the war on terror. |
| If you can't "stands" the heat... | jeskibuff
Sep 28, 2003 9:59 AM | | Keith says:<font color=maroon>I would point out that you are reading FAR too much into your deconstruction of Moore's work. It is not a thesis, it's a social commentary designed to invoke questions in those who see it -- which it obviously did given your intense interest in it.</font>
My intense interest in it? It is a work of trash propaganda and really has no interest to me on its own. You are mistaking my drawn-out defense of my very first post in this thread as "intense interest". Most of what I wrote was BEFORE I saw the film, so I couldn't possibly have been inspired to ponder Moore's points until I saw the film, could I? I agree that "Bowling" is not a thesis and my "deconstruction" of it was not made on that basis, but was more driven by Troy's hard-headed inability to comprehend that someone <b>can</b> question deceptive film-making tactics <b>without seeing the entire film!</b>
<font color=maroon>As a thesis, I too would give this a failing grade...as a social commentary however, it works very well. People will see it and start thinking...that is what a film like this SHOULD do IMO.</font>
It gets people thinking alright. It does a remarkable job as propaganda to get people thinking like left-wing nutballs. It's most effective at inspiring people to hate other people, notably Charleton Heston. I didn't know too much about Mr. Heston before I had this little battle with Troy and Worf, but the more I find, the more I like about him. Read <a href="http://www.nrahq.org/transcripts/republicans.asp">this speech</a> given to a group of Young Republicans on 6/24/99. It's a GREAT speech! Unfortunately, Moore probably just inspired hundreds of thousands of people to hate the man, as evidenced on <a href="http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?messageDate=2003-01-07 ">Moore's own web site</a> and </a href="">this thread</a> where the first poster says: <font color=blue>"What a useless excuse for a human being!"</font> and <font color=blue>"I hope he dies a violent death."</font> Congratulations, Michael Moore! You're right up there with Hitler in my book!
<font color=maroon>The part that bothers me most is when you state that "This is similar to the left-wing inability to understand the "war on terror". Every day that goes by WITHOUT a terror attack on America is a testament to the success of that war." -- This is a HUGE error in logic and one that cannot be supported in any way, shape or form. I am sure that even after you wrote this you realized just how utterly indefensible your position was...especially given the fact that terror attacks are going on everyday throughout the Middle East on American interests. If you choose to look at success or failure in simplistic terms, the American soldiers dying in Iraq everyday would be a testament to the failure of the war on terror.</font>
That is not a "HUGE error" in logic and I stand behind what I wrote now as I did "soon after I wrote it". You're just mixing apples and oranges, so I can understand how you can get so confused. There is a BIG difference between terror attacks on America (or American interests abroad) and the ongoing conflict in Iraq.
First of all, there is the simple matter of the battleground. Thousands of people went to work in NYC on 9/11/01 understanding that the hazards they would encounter might only consist of dodging a taxicab or perhaps missing their train. They didn't understand that their office tower would be a bullseye, nor could they have foreseen that. They had no idea that in a couple of hours, they would be leaping out of a 103rd-story window to escape an intense inferno, spending the last horrific moments of their lives freefalling to the ground whereupon every bone in their body would be crushed. I could go into more detail, as you seem to have forgotten that fateful day where somebody else thought they were on a routine coast-to-coast flight, then later found themselves crashin |
| (continued) | jeskibuff
Sep 28, 2003 10:01 AM | | I could go into more detail, as you seem to have forgotten that fateful day where somebody else thought they were on a routine coast-to-coast flight, then later found themselves crashing a food cart through a cockpit door in a failed attempt to save their lives and everybody else's onboard.
THAT, my friend, is the "terror attack on America" that <b>I'm</b> referring to. Terror on American soil. Terror to innocent Americans. Beyond the anthrax and the snipers, America has not had such incidents occur. We're eating away at Osama's ability to finance and carry out such operations, and we have a long way to go!
The Iraq situation is a different story. It is understood to be a war zone. Despite the fact that we don't need tanks, cruise missiles and Stealth bombers anymore, we're STILL fighting a war. It is being fought on hostile ground and EVERY American in Iraq knows that it is high risk life-threatening, even for journalists...EVEN for pro-American Iraqis! And you must understand that in every war, the enemy is still able to have successes. You (and most liberals) don't seem to understand this. While it is tragic that lives are being lost daily, you need to realize that there is a price to be paid for freedom and security. If we didn't pay that price during World War II, Hitler WOULD have succeeded and this world would be a far different place than it is today. We have to weigh the cost of taking action against the cost of <b>not</b> acting! Do the math: if one American died every day in Iraq, it would take over <b>8 years</b> to match the death count on that <b>one day</b>, 9/11/01! Things will get better in Iraq soon. Saddam is running out of places to hide and time is not on his side. But once he's captured or killed, there will still be Ba'ath party loyalists, Fedayeen and terrorist organizations to continue attacks. One thing for sure is that it really shows how WAY off target some people were when they said: "Why should we fight a war? Why not send a special-ops team in and just put a bullet in Saddam's head?" What we see now is that there are MANY heads to this snake, and by just taking out the leader, the beast will not die.
So Keith of Canada, if there ever was a "huge error" in logic, it was all on YOUR part! My logic is just basic common sense! |
| ...and a correction... | jeskibuff
Sep 28, 2003 10:06 AM | | In the above posts, I left out a link to a thread where somebody hoped that Heston would die a violent death. Here is the link:
http://www.dealofday.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=129546 |
| ...and for those with feeble memories... | jeskibuff
Sep 30, 2003 7:17 AM | | http://www.fdnylodd.com/BloodofHeroes.html |
| (continued) | Keith from Canada
Sep 30, 2003 12:42 PM | | I don't really want to get into a 'war on terror' debate with you given that our viewpoints are polar opposites...although I can assure you that I have not forgotten that fateful day anymore than you have. The difference between my understanding of the situation and your own is that I view the problem as a clash of ideologies as opposed to a war that one can simply go in and 'win'. The US entered Iraq and found no weapons of mass destruction and even Bush himself later indicated that Iraq had nothing to do with the events of 9/11. Given the relative baselessness of the attack (in the eyes of those in the middle-east), the ideological war for the enemy has been given a massive boost and America is now viewed as more evil than it was before. I suspect that this phase of the 'war' will be used by the enemy to further portray the American's as 'anti-Islam' and be used as further justification for their actions. In short, the world, both yours and mine, will be a little less safe at the end of the day IMO. |
| ...and a correction... | jeskibuff
Sep 8, 2003 10:28 AM | | One thing I should have changed before I posted the above series of messages was the thing about the reverberation/echo. Upon closer analysis, what seemed to be a noticeable edit may have been just a technical adjustment at the mixing board or perhaps the use of a second sound source. The acoustics were definitely different, but the transcript of the speech shows that there were only a couple of sentences edited out. The text follows, with the portion used in the film in maroon. The sentences in blue were the ones conveniently omitted by Moore. The word "Americans" is the point where the acoustics change noticeably, as I recall.
<font color=maroon>I have a message from the mayor, Mr. Wellington Webb, the mayor of Denver. He sent me this and said don't come here, we don't want you here. I said to the mayor, <font color=blue>well, my reply to the mayor is, I volunteered for the war they wanted me to attend when I was 18 years old. Since then, I've run small errands for my country, from Nigeria to Vietnam. I know many of you here in this room could say the same thing. But the mayor said don't come.
I'm sorry for that. I'm sorry for the newspaper ads saying the same thing, don't come here. This is our country. As Americans, we're free to travel wherever we want in our broad land. |
| I'm not interested in the jerk or anything he does... | PwrPopGuy
Sep 29, 2003 2:08 PM | | ...just the simple title "Bowling for Columbine" turns me off right from the git-go because such a tragedy as Columbine should never be made light of in any shape or form, tongue-in-cheek, whatever. I'll never rent the film or watch it. |
| |
|
|
