PDA

View Full Version : Bowling for Columbine - revisited



Wombat
14th October 2003, 17:18
So, I was going to add this to the previous <I>Bowling</I> thread, but it's locked up in the Soap Box...


So, disclaimer: I haven't seen <I>Bowling</I> yet, but I've seen other movies by Moore.

Somebody pointed me to some very interesting facts about <I>Bowling</I>, and it's made me lose what ambiguous respect I had for Moore -- the guy is a sham, and should be shut down for forgery.

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

He's right, it's not a documentary, it's fiction at best.

dZeus
14th October 2003, 17:29
I have seen bowling on advice of one of my flatmates, and while I agree with some of points that Moore makes, this movie is just utter sensationalist garbage.

Gurm
14th October 2003, 17:50
Yup. Moore has some interesting points every once in a while, and has parlayed this into a career spewing 90% bullshit. I can't listen to the 90% bullshit long enough to make it to the 10% good stuff. Sort of the same reason I don't go to church any more.

- Gurm

UtwigMU
14th October 2003, 18:18
I would agree here.

While he's on track with problems, he finds all the wrong reasons.

For instance people shoot each other in USA, but not in Canada (not at same order of magnitude), but then he starts blaming it on the NRA.

I think so called "liberals" could be a lot more succesful in USA if they weren't so radical for USA taste and they wouldn't throw stuff in the same basket.

As for weapons: I like the way we have it here.

For licence you need to:
- not be convicted
- need a reason
- need to pass basic training
- need to pass medical checkup

ZokesPro
15th October 2003, 09:52
US society is in a decline, whether or not Micheal Moore "deceived" us in his "documentary" his point has been made and there's still a lot of truth in the so called "bullshit" you see in that movie. There's a bigger meaning to his movie and he's not the only one sending this message, you can hear the SAME message in certain songs by NoFX, Sum41, etc..

You still cannot deny the fact that your American society is in a decline, every intelligent American knows it and that's what Micheal Moore's trying to make you all see. One thing that's indeed helping your decline is your media. If you could only see past the veil that your media has dropped over your eyes than you'll understand, otherwise your probably just gonna think that I'm taking out my ass but it's SO TRUE that it's sickening.

Micheal's not trying to deceive you, he's trying to show you the truth about your so called "rock solid economic American society". But then again, there are SO MANY people that are so anchored in the system that they will never see it, unplug yourself from the Matrix and you'll see.

Even my roomate thinks that the fact that everyone is still discussing the stuff portrayed in Micheal's movie proves that what Moore says isn't all that false.

Roommate : "If this guy was only telling some lies, nobody would've bothered. It is bothering people in there because they have been raised in a manner that makes them believe so firmly that they are educated the right way in the right country that they can't accept the FACTS he says. He's not there to decieve you, he's there to show that truth. That truth that most US residents won't accept because their country told them in a so subtle manner that they don't even know why they defend their country so blindly. They are then trying to find some lies about what Moore says (just like a child reacts to some other child) to "prove" that he's wrong or disoriented mentally. And the fact that people react so fiercly proves that they won't accept those things because their country is supposed to be all good."




http://www.revoketheoscar.com/

Surprise, surprise. There's some serious lunacy coming out of Michael Moore's mouth, this time on CNN's Crossfire. Take a look at these whoppers.

I'd like to ask the question whether September 11 was a terrorist attack, or was it a military attack? We call it a terrorist attack. We keep calling it a terrorist attack.

But it sure has the markings of a military attack. And I'd like to know whose military was involved in this precision, perfectly planned operation. I'm sorry, but my common sense has never allowed me to believe since that day that you can learn how to fly a plane at 500 miles per hour. And you know, when you go up 500 miles an hour, if you're off by this much, you're in the Potomac. You don't hit a five-store building like that.

You don't learn how to do that at some rinky-dink flight training school in Florida on a little video game with PacMan buttons. I'm sorry. I just don't buy that.

And I'd like to know what the involvement was within the Saudi military or the Saudi royal family or what rogue elements within the Saudi regime, whatever it is. I want to read those 28 pages and I want to know what the truth is.

This is a brilliant example of ignoring an obvious truth in order to feed the appetite of one of your ridiculous conspiracy theories. Why, in the name of God, would pilots trained by the Saudi military come to America and check themselves into a flight school? These men checked into flight schools (with full simulators, not "video games with Pac Man buttons"), paid cash, and specifically trained only on flying, not on takeoff or landing. I suppose this was some sort of grand conspiracy to hide in plain sight; to act so much like Islamic terrorists, who wanted to learn just enough to be able to fly a plane into a building, that they would never be detected by the authorities. Seriously, no matter what your opinions about Bush and the war, you have got to be absolutely delusional to even entertain this ridiculous idea. This ranks right up there with the French claim that all the Jews were told to stay away from work on 9/11.

To me this idea makes sense, because nothing else does. It also proves that the MEDIA again covered up an issue that should not have been covered up the way it did. And as a result, the American people whole heartily agreed to put more cash flow into the military, just so they can retaliate against this so called "terrorism". It's just adding fuel to an already big fire. It's quite sad.

cjolley
15th October 2003, 10:26
Originally posted by ZokesPro
To me this idea makes sense, because nothing else does.

Lots of things that "make sense" are untrue, and lots of things that "make no sense" are true.

Take a history of science class if you want plenty of examples.

Not to say he's not right, though I doubt it.
It's just that "making sense" isn't evidence.

chuck

ZokesPro
15th October 2003, 10:39
Originally posted by cjolley
Lots of things that "make sense" are untrue, and lots of things that "make no sense" are true.

Take a history of science class if you want plenty of examples.

Not to say he's not right, though I doubt it.
It's just that "making sense" isn't evidence.

chuck True, but my comment was more aimed at validating my point about the media sensationalising many stories, or covering up what they don't want the public to see.

But yeah, I don't take what he says as true, just as a logical explanation to something rather puzzling.

MultimediaMan
15th October 2003, 10:40
I would disagree he is on track. He has an agenda, and his Documentary is supposed to be following the truth, not what he believes is true, unfortunately we see many, many instances of him altering events to fit his ends...not the truth.

He makes Leni Riefenstahl and Sergei Eisenstein look positively amateur.

The Gun Control Groups here in the U.S. have been twisting the truth for a long time: Take a look at the now-villified Arming America by Michael Bellisiles: Another author who manufactured facts. This guy lied and Lied and LIED to the point where he nowhere to go - he had to give up the Bancroft Prize and his fellowship.

Look at the Gun Control Group's web sites...they never quote their statistical sources, and a recent report by the CDC came up with NO answers regarding the causal effect of the presece of firearms to deaths or injuries.

In the past (the Clinton Era), the CDC tried classify ALL firearm injuries and deaths: Accidental Shootings; Suicides, Murders, Lawful Shootings by Police and Civilians into the same "statistical database" regardless of the cause or result, to try to classify Firearms as a disease. Firearms do not classify as a disease or a living organism.

The problem is not, and never has been firearms; but how they are used, and if you look at who is misusing them, it is easy to see that drugs, poverty and ignorance are to blame far more than the mere presence of an inanimate object.

We should see public education for everyone to know how to handle a firearm, whether they want to or not: Why? To avoid accidents and show people their potential for damage. One of the reasons many other countries have such low accient rates with firearms is because they ARE trained how to use them, so the base of people who unwittingly misuse/misplace them is low.

Education beats the crap out of regulation, every time.

Taz-Matt
15th October 2003, 11:51
- Did you really choose to go to school and learn the things you did or did the government and companies almost forced you to go to school, get good grades, learn the thing they want you to learn to be a good citizen?

- Did you really choose what you like to do for a living or did the government and companies allied together to create a media where this field was being promoted as fun and lucrative for you to have better chances to get there and serve their needs?

- Did you really choose to work 40 hours a week, 5 days a week for about 50 years to get yourself a good retirement plan or did the goverment cooperated with the companies to control the way you live to make you think you're doing well when in fact, you are doing exactly what they need, just to get your reward at the end?

And I could say a ton more of these...

Thinking that way, do you think the way you want or do you think the way you want according to what you've learned? And is what you've learned have been decided by yourself or have you been influenced by the system in which you grew in and did not even realize it because it's so tight that you don't even see it? Is the governement trying to hide you the truth of the millions of innocent deaths in other countries? Did the teenagers in Columbine high school (Home of the Rebels) shoot each other because they had guns or did they saw the massacre in Kosovo the same day and thought "Man, WE are making these weapons that are killing thousands of innocents, WE ARE MAKING them in our own little town (in littleton)" and then shot others to be sure they wouldn't make any other weapons later on?

For that, I don't have any answers and I don't say that it is working exactly that way but it seems to me it is what Michael Moore is trying to show us. He's just trying to SHOW US, not to make us believe. But from this point of view, it's for sure a good thing to at least think about it!

For my part, I can at least say that I thought about it and will continue to think about it... And about the people dying in themselves in this fabulous, invincible AMERICA!

- Taz-Matt

Wombat
15th October 2003, 11:57
Originally posted by ZokesPro

Micheal's not trying to deceive you, he's trying to show you the truth about your so called "rock solid economic American society". He's not trying to deceive me? When he splices multiple speeches together to make people say things they didn't, he's not deceiving me? When he takes a quote from one source, and attributes it to another, out of context, he's not trying to deceive me? Pray tell, what exactly <I>is</I> he trying to do?

MultimediaMan
15th October 2003, 12:09
What he is trying to do is TELL you what to think.

He draws all of the conclusions for his viewers, not allowing them to think for themselves.

Read about what Lockheed-Martin actually makes in Littleton, and you will see he is not trying to inform the user, but deliberately misleads the viewer, by changing context and literally manufacturing dialogue.

This is not offering a different point of view, this is presenting one man's fantasy as reality.

Michael Moore is LUCKY to be American...in most other countries he would have been jail, or worse, for doing what he did.

Try that in any middle-eastern nation and he would been shot dead on the spot. In Africa or South America he would have disappeared faster than a freshman girl on prom night. In Europe he would likely have been jailed for publicly lying, akin to Holocaust Denial in Germany.

No, he can't be right and the rest of us wrong...why? Because I watched the "documentary", and I know for a fact many of the facts he purports are nothing more than left-wing drivel, reconstituted as a serious documentary.

I did my own thinking, and as others have done, uncovered, frame by frame, line by line alterations to events, places and names. This guy is a two-bit charlatan.

Jammrock
15th October 2003, 12:43
Originally posted by Taz-Matt
- Did you really choose to go to school and learn the things you did or did the government and companies almost forced you to go to school, get good grades, learn the thing they want you to learn to be a good citizen?
Actually, I did go to school to learn what I wanted. I recieved a basic education in grade school, and then recieved a very specific education to learn exactly what I wanted to do.


- Did you really choose what you like to do for a living or did the government and companies allied together to create a media where this field was being promoted as fun and lucrative for you to have better chances to get there and serve their needs?
I am doing exactly what I want to be doing.


- Did you really choose to work 40 hours a week, 5 days a week for about 50 years to get yourself a good retirement plan or did the goverment cooperated with the companies to control the way you live to make you think you're doing well when in fact, you are doing exactly what they need, just to get your reward at the end?
As apposed to giving all of your money to your socialist government and let them tell you what you should do with your money? Or maybe moving into the wilderness of Canada and living off the land? Or living in your parents basement, smoking pot, and arguing about the man for the rest of your life? I chose my profession. I accepted the price needed to be paid to compete in my field. What more needs to be said?

If you don't like the "western world" then leave it. We don't require you to stay. 40 hours a day, 5 days a week is for peons. People who are after the big money work 60+ hours a week, travel 2-3 days a week, and spend almost as much time in school as a doctor. And for their dedication they get bigger rewards. It's the way Western Society works.


And I could say a ton more of these...
Keep 'em coming.


Thinking that way, do you think the way you want or do you think the way you want according to what you've learned? And is what you've learned have been decided by yourself or have you been influenced by the system in which you grew in and did not even realize it because it's so tight that you don't even see it?
That made absolutely no sense. Sober up and try again.

Is the governement trying to hide you the truth of the millions of innocent deaths in other countries?
Millions? Really? Where? What do you define an innocent death? If a man dies of old age, did he not die innocently? Does that count?

Did the teenagers in Columbine high school (Home of the Rebels) shoot each other because they had guns or did they saw the massacre in Kosovo the same day and thought "Man, WE are making these weapons that are killing thousands of innocents, WE ARE MAKING them in our own little town (in littleton)" and then shot others to be sure they wouldn't make any other weapons later on?
No, they were just a couple of st00pid psycho kids. Nothing more, nothing less.

For that, I don't have any answers and I don't say that it is working exactly that way but it seems to me it is what Michael Moore is trying to show us. He's just trying to SHOW US, not to make us believe. But from this point of view, it's for sure a good thing to at least think about it!
Michael Moore is a liberal sensationalist with a camera and an editing crew. The only thing he knows how to accurately protray is the way to his refridgerator.


For my part, I can at least say that I thought about it and will continue to think about it... And about the people dying in themselves in this fabulous, invincible AMERICA!
ROFL ... that's a good one. Nothing on this Earth is immortal. To say that we "Americans" think we are invinsible is retarded, and shows your complete lack of understanding about the American culture and history. BTW, Canada is in North America, so you're technically an American too :p

Come back in 4-5 months when the mary jane is out of your system and you can form a proper thought.

Jammrock

ZokesPro
15th October 2003, 13:52
Originally posted by Wombat
He's not trying to deceive me? When he splices multiple speeches together to make people say things they didn't, he's not deceiving me? When he takes a quote from one source, and attributes it to another, out of context, he's not trying to deceive me? Pray tell, what exactly <I>is</I> he trying to do?

I think he's trying ot show that our society (canadian as well as american) is ina decline and it's not getting better.

Originally posted by Jammrock
No, they were just a couple of st00pid psycho kids. Nothing more, nothing less. Then how come you don't see MORE of this?? They had a reason, and although we'll never know what it is, they HAD a reason.

Edit: Micheal Moore maybe a genius in his own mind, and most of you will probably never see it the way he does (ina way it's agood thing) but at least he makes you think about how our society really is and where it's going. But you didn't even have to see Bowling for Columbine to see that. But if you guys can't see it then what's the point of even trying ot do any good in this world anymore? Everything is run by corporations, they tell us what we buy and how much of it we need, it's so obvious, but ina capitlist world that's the way it works. :(

Gurm
15th October 2003, 15:28
No. He lies and slanders. Whether he does this to "make a point" is irrelevant. His "point" is ALSO wrong. He is attempting to "get you to think", but only in the direction he wants, in support of HIS AGENDA.

- Gurm

Gurm
15th October 2003, 15:34
Frankly, I'm surprised that Charlton Heston hasn't sued Moore yet. I would, if I were him.

- Gurm

Wombat
15th October 2003, 17:26
Originally posted by ZokesPro
I think he's trying ot show that our society (canadian as well as american) is ina decline and it's not getting better.


If it's so true, then why can't he get his point across without lying? If he has to sink to this level of fraud, then he's just accelerating this supposed decline.

ZokesPro
15th October 2003, 17:30
:rolleyes:

It's like talking to brick walls. I'm done, I said what needed to be said.

Edit: It's not about Micheal Moore and what he has to say, it's about our society, but obviously you guys are too "into" it to EVEN see what's really going on. Micheal Moore isn't the one who is accelerating the so called decline...

Taz-Matt
15th October 2003, 17:33
:rolleyes:

Yes! There's no point of even saying that we do not think the same as somebody else in a free country without being repulsed!

I'm done with that issue too!
(And by the way, I didn't toutch any drugs and I did not drink any alcohol in the last 5 years JammRock. I was not trying to harm anyone so why try to harm me because I think differently, am I free or what? I only wanted to discuss it, but now, I think I'll just move on...)

ZokesPro
15th October 2003, 17:37
Originally posted by Gurm
No. He lies and slanders. Whether he does this to "make a point" is irrelevant. His "point" is ALSO wrong. He is attempting to "get you to think", but only in the direction he wants, in support of HIS AGENDA.

- Gurm I have only recently heard of Micheal Moore, yet what HE talks about has been said for ages, only difference is that HE has the guts to show it ina movie. But it's NOT about "Bowling for Columbine". You guys are so blind to it all... m'eh, what's the use...

Wombat
15th October 2003, 18:04
Originally posted by ZokesPro
I have only recently heard of Micheal Moore, yet what HE talks about has been said for ages, only difference is that HE has the guts to show it ina movie. But it's NOT about "Bowling for Columbine". You guys are so blind to it all... m'eh, what's the use...
Zokes, it's not news. It's just perception. The other day a friend of mine read me a newspaper article bemoaning the decline of values, employment, loyalty in America. The article was from a 150-year old newspaper.

Hell, even the Greeks were talking about an imminent downfall of society, over 2000 years ago.

The world is old, humanity is old, you are nothing more than an observer of a sliver of it all. You're entirety of observatation is just a smidgen of our civilization. The sky is not falling, chill out.

ZokesPro
15th October 2003, 18:28
Originally posted by Wombat
Zokes, it's not news. It's just perception. The other day a friend of mine read me a newspaper article bemoaning the decline of values, employment, loyalty in America. The article was from a 150-year old newspaper.

Hell, even the Greeks were talking about an imminent downfall of society, over 2000 years ago.

The world is old, humanity is old, you are nothing more than an observer of a sliver of it all. You're entirety of observatation is just a smidgen of our civilization. The sky is not falling, chill out. I understand. It's just so frustrating and depressing, seems like there's nothing we can do to make this damn place any better. :(

Taz-Matt
15th October 2003, 18:35
Now that's interesting Wombat. I thought I would not post again in here but it seems it is getting a bit more interesting now. Thanks to you! ;)

Yes! It is right that it has been like that for a long time and it is also right that we only are observers. The only thing I want to say is that if we were the ones being bombed every once in a while, maybe we wouldn't think the same way. Maybe we'd want to change something. Maybe we would try to be more than observers. If Moore got one good thing into my head, it was that (to be a little Moore empathic). But I don't believe anything in any movie until I know it's true. That's why I still analyze what he's showing us and try to talk about it and that's also why I found your comment very interesting Wombat. :)

- Taz-Matt

Wombat
15th October 2003, 18:58
Oh, I'm not arguing for inaction. Far from it. However, I do not believe that the ends justify the means, whether it's George W. Bush or Michael Moore. Act with integrity if you're going to act.

Jammrock
15th October 2003, 19:59
Then how come you don't see MORE of this?? They had a reason, and although we'll never know what it is, they HAD a reason.
There is a lot of it. 2-3 school shootings on the news each. Pearl Jam's Jeremy is about a kid who shoots himself in school. And that's just what we hear about. Inner Cities have metal detectors at every door to keep guns and knives out of the school.

I have never said that moral values of society aren't declining. Moral degradation is common in any aging society, and the more power the nation has, the quicker the degradation. It happened to Britan (through forced subjugation of their colonies), China (drug use, loss of moral values), Spain, Portugal, Charlemain's (sp?) empire, Mongolia, Rome, Greece, Egypt, Babylon ... et cetera.

Not that the US is not in anyway as 'great' as those classical societies. The US is nothing compared to those old empires. It's just like what the old saying says, "power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely." In the end, human ambition and greed is the great empire and nation killer.

Now, back to the original topic at hand. Michael Moore is nothing more than a liberal sensationalist. Everything he has ever done beyond his original Flint, Michigan factory closure documentary has been nothing but him blowing his own smoke. He uses simple yellow journalize and mud slinging to rile people up to make enough cash to keep his double wide fridge stocked.

Jammrock

Gurm
16th October 2003, 05:32
Amen, Jammrock. :)

And Zokes - while I _do_ appreciate that you have some feelings of frustration over the world situation, and especially the national situation...

Please don't by into what every sensationalist fraud has to say simply because he pays lip service to what you want to hear.

It's like the Christians (no, I'm not about to religion-bash here) I grew up with.

These people, who were otherwise intelligent and well meaning, seeking religious truth... were absurdly easy to manipulate.

For reasons that are STILL unclear to me, anyone who showed up and paid lip service to their beliefs gained INSTANT credibility.

The campaign against "Dungeons and Dragons" comes to mind. A couple of people somewhere claimed that D&D was an occult handbook. Thousands of copies were burnt by Christians ACROSS THE NATION. Sermons were delivered, kids were punished for playing the game... and not a single one of these people ever OPENED THE DAMN GAMN BOOK to SEE if it was really occult. Here's a hint - it wasn't. Nothing to see in there. Just some elves and dwarves, in a cheap ripoff of Lord of the Rings, saving the world from evil.

A couple years ago, we had Thanksgiving with my aunt and uncle. He is a protestant minister. We have a yearly tradition of those of us who have energy left after the meal (it gets fewer and fewer each year) traipsing off to a movie... and we mentioned the first Harry Potter film.

My uncle said, with ALL seriousness, "isn't it true that J.K. Rowling used actual satanic incantations in that book"?

We were flabbergasted. It's a book for 10-year-olds, and the closest that Rowling comes to ANY incantation is muddled Latin. So we took them to see the movie (they're pretty open-minded for born-again types) and they were SHOCKED that it could have been so badly misrepresented. But nobody in their entire congregation (or anywhere else, for that matter) had BOTHERED to check the book and SEE if it was the truth or not.

Sadly, this is an intellectual epidemic in protestant Christian circles. And it reminds me a lot of Moore. He says the right things on the surface - he makes a lot of points that the Liberals and disenfranchised have been trying to make for years, and he tows their party line.

The problem is that you can't make valid points by lying.

I can say "this country is going to hell in a handbasket! Kids are bringing guns to school! And look, they're getting them from the KKK! And the KKK is being funded by George W. Bush!"

Now, we ALL dislike the KKK. We ALL dislike kids having guns in school, and the liberals blame the conservative opposition to gun control. I've just tied together three UNRELATED elements. Now imagine that I had imagery specifically engineered to "show the connection" between those things. There isn't any such connection, but making up a video montage isn't hard.

See? I just lied as well as Moore... which is to say poorly. I made a "valid point", which is to say not valid at all.

- Gurm

ZokesPro
16th October 2003, 09:29
When i saw Micheal Moore's so called "documentary" I didn't believe it all. It would be foolish to take everything he says in that movie as fact. And yes, I agree, it's easy to deceive and to be decieved when there are so many pictures on the tele. (reminds me of my anti-tv thread)

What his movie told me mainly is that there's a problem with our society and the way it works and that there's not much being done to help. (especially onthe corporate side) Aside form that, it's entertainement. But he does have so good facts in his movie and he does make a lot of very sneaky and deceiving associations which are his own thoughts on things, I did see that. And some of his deceptions do make sense, but I keep an open mind and I don't take what i see for fact, there's always that part of me that keeps saying: "It's a movie, he wants to make money and he'll do it by any means possible". I think the expression is "take it with a grain of salt"?

So yeah, don't worry, I'm not that gullible. :)

Kooldino
17th October 2003, 08:45
Originally posted by Gurm
No. He lies and slanders. Whether he does this to "make a point" is irrelevant. His "point" is ALSO wrong. He is attempting to "get you to think", but only in the direction he wants, in support of HIS AGENDA.

- Gurm

Exactly.

Kooldino
17th October 2003, 08:45
Originally posted by Wombat
If it's so true, then why can't he get his point across without lying? If he has to sink to this level of fraud, then he's just accelerating this supposed decline.

Amen, brother.

;)

Kooldino
17th October 2003, 08:54
Originally posted by Gurm
Amen, Jammrock. :)

And Zokes - while I _do_ appreciate that you have some feelings of frustration over the world situation, and especially the national situation...

Please don't by into what every sensationalist fraud has to say simply because he pays lip service to what you want to hear.

It's like the Christians (no, I'm not about to religion-bash here) I grew up with.

These people, who were otherwise intelligent and well meaning, seeking religious truth... were absurdly easy to manipulate.

For reasons that are STILL unclear to me, anyone who showed up and paid lip service to their beliefs gained INSTANT credibility.

The campaign against "Dungeons and Dragons" comes to mind. A couple of people somewhere claimed that D&D was an occult handbook. Thousands of copies were burnt by Christians ACROSS THE NATION. Sermons were delivered, kids were punished for playing the game... and not a single one of these people ever OPENED THE DAMN GAMN BOOK to SEE if it was really occult. Here's a hint - it wasn't. Nothing to see in there. Just some elves and dwarves, in a cheap ripoff of Lord of the Rings, saving the world from evil.

A couple years ago, we had Thanksgiving with my aunt and uncle. He is a protestant minister. We have a yearly tradition of those of us who have energy left after the meal (it gets fewer and fewer each year) traipsing off to a movie... and we mentioned the first Harry Potter film.

My uncle said, with ALL seriousness, "isn't it true that J.K. Rowling used actual satanic incantations in that book"?

We were flabbergasted. It's a book for 10-year-olds, and the closest that Rowling comes to ANY incantation is muddled Latin. So we took them to see the movie (they're pretty open-minded for born-again types) and they were SHOCKED that it could have been so badly misrepresented. But nobody in their entire congregation (or anywhere else, for that matter) had BOTHERED to check the book and SEE if it was the truth or not.

Sadly, this is an intellectual epidemic in protestant Christian circles. And it reminds me a lot of Moore. He says the right things on the surface - he makes a lot of points that the Liberals and disenfranchised have been trying to make for years, and he tows their party line.

The problem is that you can't make valid points by lying.

I can say "this country is going to hell in a handbasket! Kids are bringing guns to school! And look, they're getting them from the KKK! And the KKK is being funded by George W. Bush!"

Now, we ALL dislike the KKK. We ALL dislike kids having guns in school, and the liberals blame the conservative opposition to gun control. I've just tied together three UNRELATED elements. Now imagine that I had imagery specifically engineered to "show the connection" between those things. There isn't any such connection, but making up a video montage isn't hard.

See? I just lied as well as Moore... which is to say poorly. I made a "valid point", which is to say not valid at all.

- Gurm

Damn good points, Gurm.

Gurm
17th October 2003, 10:09
Thanks.

And Zokes - the fact that YOU got that out of the movie doesn't mean that most people did.

Most people assumed that it was what it purported to be - a DOCUMENTARY. People go into documentaries expecting the truth, or at least a version thereof.

- Gurm

MultimediaMan
17th October 2003, 10:37
Zokes...name one "Fact" Michael Moore put in BFC that was actually correct and in context.

Hint: You can't find one, other than people being at places...but even then, the times and timings of the people purported to be in those places have been distorted in futherance of the director's point of view.

Now the Real Question: Does anybody here think BFC is truly a documentary?

Wulfman
17th October 2003, 11:24
depending on what standards you set.

if I look at most newscasts atm and judge BFC by their standards: yes.*

by the "classic" definition of a documentation: no.

mfg
wulfman

PS.: example: do you really think "embedded journalists" "documented" the war?

ZokesPro
17th October 2003, 11:27
Originally posted by MultimediaMan
Zokes...name one "Fact" Michael Moore put in BFC that was actually correct and in context.

Hint: You can't find one, other than people being at places...but even then, the times and timings of the people purported to be in those places have been distorted in futherance of the director's point of view.

Now the Real Question: Does anybody here think BFC is truly a documentary? Here's ONE.

On April 19 1995, he mentioned that the Oklahoma City building was bombed killing 168 people, is that false?

So you're telling me that this was distorted just so we can see his point of view? Riiiiight. I think you're more mad at the fact that this movie directly affects you and your country (and mine too) and your afriad to admit it. I have plenty more FACTS, want to hear them? I have all day and I can watch that movie as many times as I want, AND I can prove every fact so what's the deal here?

You asked for a "fact" and voila, I showed you a "fact". Nuff said.

Kooldino
17th October 2003, 13:49
Originally posted by ZokesPro
Here's ONE.

On April 19 1995, he mentioned that the Oklahoma City building was bombed killing 168 people, is that false?


Probably not, but that's pretty public knowledge. He wouldn't be so foolish as to distort something so obvious.



So you're telling me that this was distorted just so we can see his point of view? Riiiiight. I think you're more mad at the fact that this movie directly affects you and your country (and mine too) and your afriad to admit it.


??? :rolleyes:



I have plenty more FACTS, want to hear them? I have all day and I can watch that movie as many times as I want, AND I can prove every fact so what's the deal here?


You can't prove every fact...some of them are PROVEN not to be.

Wombat
17th October 2003, 13:59
Wouldn't splicing a man's speech together to make him say sentences he never spoke qualify as falsifying a fact?

Wulfman
17th October 2003, 14:01
Originally posted by Wombat
Wouldn't splicing a man's speech together to make him say sentences he never spoke qualify as falsifying a fact?
source?

mfg
wulfman

Wombat
17th October 2003, 14:04
Originally posted by ZokesPro
Here's ONE.

On April 19 1995, he ... bombed ... 168 people, is that false?

So | this was distorted just so we can see | this movie. | You and your country (and mine too) | admit it. I have plenty more FACTS, want to hear them? I have all day and I can watch that movie as many times as I want, AND I can | deal.

You asked for a | show. Nuff said.

That's really what Zokes said. I went to the Michael Moore School of "Truth."

Wombat
17th October 2003, 14:05
Originally posted by Wulfman
source?

mfg
wulfman The post that started this thread.

ZokesPro
17th October 2003, 14:20
Originally posted by Kooldino
Probably not, but that's pretty public knowledge. He wouldn't be so foolish as to distort something so obvious.

MultimediaMan said that I couldn't fine ONE fact, yet I did, so what's the problem? Yeah sure it's public knowledge but he did say that Micheal Moore distorts everything, yet this comment wasn't distorted.

I know what you guys are trying to get at and it's getting old. Sure my so called "quote" wasn't EXACTLY what he said in the movie but still. He did mention something that wasn't distorted or falsified, what more do you want?

paulcs
17th October 2003, 15:06
All documentary films come from a point of view. The first documentary, Nanook of the North, had staged scenes. The filmmaker, Robert Joseph Flaherty, believed you had to lie to tell the truth. I'm not sure I buy that, but it is the starting point of the genre.

Documentaries with narrations have particularly strong points of view. Bowling for Columbine practically had a host: a celebrity filmmaker who is part social critic, part stand-up comedian, and part Alan Funt. I seriously doubt Michael Moore intended any pretense of objectivity. Objectivity wasn't the point. Moore started off with a thesis, took numerous potshots at an easy target, twisted his original thesis 180 degrees, and ended up saying something entirely different.

A propanda film is not suppose to make you think. It does that for you. To my mind, Bowling for Columbine started off with the answers, subverted them, and ended with the questions. That's the opposite of what propaganda does.

Paul

Gurm
17th October 2003, 15:14
It started with no answers, twisted the truth, lied a lot, and ended with entirely unrelated questions.

It doesn't make me think. It makes me vomit.

If it weren't illegal to kill people, I'd find a way to eliminate Michael Moore from the gene pool.

I'm sure that he'd get some twisted satisfaction from making someone hate him so much, but you know what? I don't hate him. I just think that for the betterment of mankind, his genes should be eliminated before he breeds.

- Gurm

ZokesPro
17th October 2003, 17:10
Even if Micheal Moore never existed, there would (and actually there are!) still be people like him saying relatively the same things he did. (but obviously not in the same manner and not about EVERYTHING he talks about either)

And what I find particlularly funny is that it's your American ideals (the ones that were put inside your head from the very first day you started school) that makes you reply the way you all are. From the moment I said something in this thread I knew it would be a lost cause. I knew that you'd all reply the way you did yet I persisted. (I must be crazy) And I can almost guarantee that if you were all born and raised in different countries (that had different ideals of course) than maybe, just maybe you'd see the United States and most importantly it's ideals, in a different manner than the way you all do.

Also, it wasn't Micheal Moore and his stupid movie that made me say the things I've said. I've been hearing the same relative message from all sorts of different groups, countries and people all my life, but just now am I mature and knowledgable enough to understand the message. (or what's going on, however you want to look at it) But it is pointless to argue any furthur, your American ideals prevent you from seeing all there is to see and your so brained washed that you'll do and say anything to protect it, tis normal, that's the way they want you to think! (and as per usual your all gonna say that im crazy, that I'm spewing out pure bullshit, but I don't care)

In short, the best way I can describe it is that your all in the Matrix living your lives not really knowing what goes past what you see, and I am not. (I'm still stuck in this shitty system but at least I'm aware of what it is and what it's doing to people)

But don't hate me for what I have to say, because I do have the freedom of speech! If you guys think that I'm spewing out bullshit than that's your right to think that, and I respect and understand what you guys have to say. Just don't come down on me for what I have to say, because that would be taking awat my freedom of speech.

Edit: I'm not anti-American in any way, but I do think that your ideals need to be changed, otherwise as a society it'll only get worse.

Gurm
18th October 2003, 08:15
I don't understand how you can possibly think that we all share these so-called "American Ideals".

And I fail to understand how you can justify dishonesty in the name of making a point.

If I walk into a room filled with people and say "My name is Shiela, I'm a 47-year-old woman, and I just entered menopause!" then nobody is going to listen to a ****ING word I say after that, because I'm clearly lying.

I don't CARE what Moore wants us to think about. I have already thought about it, and I guarantee you that I've thought about it more clearly, more rationally, and with greater depth than Moore is capable of.

But if your "non-American Ideals" force you to defend lying as an acceptable practice in order to effect the sort of reaction that you want, and as an acceptable force for social change...

Just answer me this question. SIMPLE question.

Is lying ok?

Is slandering ok?

Is purposely deceiving people ok?

I'm not asking you if it's justifiable. I'm asking you if, in your little world, it's acceptable to routinely lie to people and slander other people?

- Gurm

Taz-Matt
18th October 2003, 10:55
Originally posted by Kooldino
You can't prove every fact... some of them are PROVEN not to be.If some of them are proven not to be, then it leaves most of them proven... (why play with the words Dino? I'm able too but it's pointless! :confused: )


Originally posted by Gurm
Is lying ok?
Is slandering ok?
Is purposely deceiving people ok?I know you asked this question to Zokes and I'm sure he'll respond too so I'll go with my own answer for now.

Never should we lie, never should we slander, never should we decieve people on purpose! But ain't that the way the government is acting? Ain't that the way the media is acting? Ain't that the way major corporations are acting? They're all doing that, right now, as we speak and I know you are aware of that (If not, let's end it on this because we don't live on the same planet)! There are corrupted people almost everywhere and if you include Moore in them, fine, I understand your point since you're sure he does all that and maybe it's true. But I don't think he ONLY lies, slanders and decieve on purpose. If that would be so, I bet this movie would be banned from america just like some other movies like "Takedown", a hacker movie (true story) that shown that the government and major corporations don't have any respect of our privacy and that if you are the one making the mess but you are in the major corp or in the government, no problems, we'll blame the hacker who found out what he found about us before he shows it to everybody and everything will be fine. He'll look like a liar, he'll look like a slander against the government, he'll look like someone who wants to decieve us on purpose. That is the way it works.

This scenario is not the same thaugh with Moore since he only talks about what he believes is going on and most american people just won't believe him so no one has to intervene.

Now tell me that you believe all of what your government says, tell me that you believe all of what the major corporations say and tell me that you believe in everything that the media says and I'll tell you that you're lying to yourself so if you are listening anyone of these three without questionning everything they say like you do with Michael Moore, then you lie to yourself and you are misinformed so your point would be unvaluable from the start. But I won't say that you are misinformed because I seem to understand that you have a different point of view on the things he says but you don't seem to understand that we can have a different opinion (and you OR I could be right). And in this case I think we seem to be all right since you say there are some lies and things like that and we say that there are some truth... 50-50, take yours, I'll take mine and let's get done with it ok?

Other people like Noam Chomsky have written things on this :
- Rogue States : In his newest book, Chomsky holds the world’s superpowers to their own standards of the rule of law and finds them appallingly lacking. Rogue States is the latest result of his tireless efforts to measure the world’s superpowers by their own professed standards and to hold them responsible for the indefensible actions they commit in the name of democracy and human rights.

- The new military humanism : Was the war over Kosovo really a multi-national effort waged solely for humanitarian reasons? Or was it the establishment of a new world order headed by self-proclaimed "enlightened states" with enough military might to ignore international law and world opinion? In this book, begun after the NATO bombs started dropping in Yugoslavia and finished as the defeated Serbian forces were leaving the Kosovo province, Chomsky gives us an overview of a changing world order with "might makes right" as its foundation.

This last one explains really well what Moore is talking about. NoFX has also lyrics on this, more perticularly the song "The Decline" which you can read the lyrics here (http://pages.infinit.net/eddev/bowling/bowling.htm) and in which you'll find these lines "Start with assumption, That a million people are smart, Smarter than one", and that's how it works right now!

There are a lot of people, bands, associations, students, elders, workers, writers, etc. that said the same thing for a while now. So if he's wrong then a lot of people are and if we are all wrong, then I am ready to accept it...

But when I also see web sites like "Bands against Bush : Bands Against Bush is an international resistance movement advocating the use of music, art and culture to create a more just and equitable world", "ZMag : Weapons of Mass Destruction, State Terrorism and September 11, 1973 & 2001, Stealth Militarism, Incendiary Bombs & Inflammatory Lies, Patrolling the U.S. Back-Country", "ISM (International Solidarity Movement) united by hatred of oppression", "Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) : national media watch group offering well-documented criticism of media bias and censorship since 1986. FAIR advocates for greater diversity in the press and exposes neglected news stories. FAIR believes that structural reform is ultimately needed to break up the dominant media conglomerates, establish independent public broadcasting and promote strong non-profit sources of information. www.fair.org", "Disinformation : The gateway to the underground - news, politics, conspiracy and weirdness. www.disinfo.com", etc. Name it, they're all there talking around the same issues.

That said, I still don't think Michael Moore ONLY lies, slanders and decieves on purpose. If he would than I think half of the world would be, including the government, major corporations and the media.

I respect your opinion, as long as you respect ours! :)

Matt.

ZokesPro
18th October 2003, 11:35
Gurm, since I'm tired of this discussion, since it's getting us nowhere, (and cause I still wanna be friends with all of you despite my opinions) I'll quote a band, called NoFX, in their song "The Decline" (as Taz-Matt ponted out).

"Be the victim of your own design."

I don't care what's said beyond this, obviously it doesn't matter anyways.

- ZokesPro

Gurm
18th October 2003, 11:51
Hey, I just read something interesting.

Did you know that 1/3 of all Germans under the age of 30 (that's 33% for those of you math-challenged) believe that the United States Government purposely destroyed the WTC and Pentagon on September 11?

That's not a joke. That's not a fake number. That's not "arabs who already are prejudiced against Israel". That's GERMAN YOUTH.

And do you know WHY they believe that? Because of crackpots like Moore who take things out of context and LIE TO PEOPLE.

I don't CARE how good his message is. I don't CARE if he makes some people think. I JUST DON'T CARE, because he's taking the easily misled (people who will go sit through crap like that in a movie theater) and "helping" them to be misled EVEN FURTHER.

I don't CARE if you have a good point about the government and the media and all that happy horse shit. You think you can make that BETTER by causing people (dumb people, but let's face it that's 75% of the WORLD dammit) to believe OTHER things that aren't true?

You want people to be angry at the decline of our society? There are lots of ways to do that WITHOUT making Charlton Heston, who is an otherwise UPSTANDING citizen, into a criminal with words he didn't even say!

You want people to get upset at the media? You can do that WITHOUT making up numbers, distorting facts, and drawing connections that just aren't there.

Zokes, I understand your point. But you're refusing to understand mine - that no matter WHAT the purpose, lying to the public and making them think untrue things is WORSE than whatever you're trying to save them from.

MUCH MUCH WORSE.

It's worse than apathy. It's worse than whatever you feel the government is doing to them. It's worse than the media.

Causing people to believe things you KNOW AREN'T TRUE is worse than just about anything.

This is why I don't like marketing departments, or the people in them. I think they all deserve to die a fiery death in the passenger seat of a Pinto. (Safe car! Honest!)

This is why I don't like politicians, who make a living lying to people.

It's also why I don't like pseudo-intellectual BLOWHARDS like Moore (and Mutz on his bad days) who make a big show of being sympathetic to the plight of the common man, in order to push their own agenda at the expense of the public.

Moore HURTS PEOPLE. He hurts Charlton Heston directly. He hurts those of us who'd like to NOT have our 2nd amendment taken away. And he hurts the public by feeding them YET ANOTHER piece of misinformation and slanderous lies.

It's bad enough that the government does it, that the media does it, and that big corporations do it. But when people who claim to be AGAINST those big 3 entities ALSO do it... it's flat out inexcusable. There is NO cause "just" enough to make it excusable.

Moore's Oscar should be revoked. He should be sued for slander and libel, and he should be forced to get up on stage at NEXT year's Oscars and apologize to the people he has hurt.

- Gurm

Gurm
18th October 2003, 12:03
Originally posted by ZokesPro
Gurm, I'm a victim. I don't care.

See how much fun this is? We should all practice this!

ZokesPro
18th October 2003, 13:30
Moore says in BFC:


1980's: U.S. trains Osama bin Laden and fellow terrorist to kill soviets. CIA give them $3 billion.

1982: U.S. provides billions in aid to Saddam Hussein for weapons to kill Iranians.

1983: White House secretely give Iran weapons to kill Iraquis.

1990: Iraq invades Kuwait with weapons from U.S.

1991: U.S. enters Iraq. Bush reinstates dictator of Kuwait.

1998: Clinton bombs "weapons factory" in Sudan. Factory turns out ot be making aspirin.

1991 to present: American planes bomb Iraq ona weekly basis. U.N. estimates 500,000 iraqui children die from bombing and sanctions.

2000-01: U.S. gives Thaliban-rules Afghanistan $245 million in "aid".

Sept. 11, 2001: Osama bin Laden uses his expert CIA training to murder 3,000 poeple.

I purposely left out a few quotes cause they don't really apply, other than that these are DIRECT quotes from his movie, un-modified quotes.


Originally posted by Gurm

Did you know that 1/3 of all Germans under the age of 30 (that's 33% for those of you math-challenged) believe that the United States Government purposely destroyed the WTC and Pentagon on September 11?

This is what your referring to when you speak of the German youth right Gurm? (BFC quote above, although it doesn't directly say that the United States Governmen purposely destroyed the WTC)

I indeed do see what you mean by Moore spreading his lies, slander and deception. But as for me? I don't know what to believe in all of this. So no, I'm not refusing to understand what your saying. So my next question is, how much of it IS true? Does anybody HONESTLY know the answer?

I sure hells don't.

I also heard the the pentagon attack was staged, that they purposely blew up a part of the building for effect (in relation to the WTC attack), but I don't remember who told me this and where he/she got this info, and I don't believe it either.

KRSESQ
18th October 2003, 18:11
After following this all with interest for the past week, I have one or two observations which may have already been touched on:

@ taz: Somewhere in your rather longwinded, rambling post, you make a noteworthy point: We are all products of what we've learned in school, experienced in life, been taught by our parents, been exposed to through the popular media, and so forth. Everyone's personal beliefs are filtered through this witch's brew of nature/nurture, which results in your own personal outlook, prejudice, etc. NO ONE is immune, even those who consider themselves "free thinkers." Everything you think, say or do is a distillation of everything you've learned, read, or experienced. Since no two people have the same upbringing, education, or experiences, no two people are going to have the same outlook.

In a way it reminds me of a kid I worked with once, who held college in general in contempt. "All they want to do is teach you what to think." I laughed at him. "If you went to college expecting them to teach you what to think, no wonder you went away disappointed. The purpose of college isn't to teach you WHAT to think, it's to teach you HOW to think." This kid was without a doubt one of the dumbest guys I've ever met, yet he had the nerve to hold Rush Limbaugh in contempt. I couldn't help laughing at him.

(Don't get the impression I'm some kind of dittohead. On the rare occation I do listen, I find Rush mildly entertaining. Nothing more.)

As far as all of the conspiracy theories surrounding 9-11 are concerned, I find it amazing that people are more inclined to believe complex conspiracies than they are to believe simple truths.

Scenario one: A handful of dedicated, determined fanatics using makeshift weapons and lots of intimidation, manage to take control of four largely unprotected passenger airliners and turn them into guided missiles, or

Scenario two: A shadowy multinational cabal of American military/industrial leaders, the CIA, and the Massad, under orders from the White House and/or the International Jewish Conspiracy and/or the illuminati, using complex high tech means, take remote control of four civilian airliners (which may or may not have passengers in them) and crash them into predetermined targets and/or set off explosions in key locations to make it LOOK like passenger aircraft were used as guided missiles. (Did I miss anything?)

The point I'm trying to make is, no matter what news source you choose, that source will have an agenda of its own that you MUST examine in order to see the motivation behind their reporting. This is obvious, of course, but so many forget this simple fact that it's downright ridiculous sometimes. Get some of your news from Fox, get some from MSNBC, get some from Yellow Times, get some from Pravda or Al Jezeera, for that matter. What you choose to conclude in the end is shaped by the forces that shaped YOU.

As for Bowling For Columbine, I vote Satire. With satire, all rules are out the window.

Kevin

Wombat
18th October 2003, 19:10
Originally posted by KRSESQ


As for Bowling For Columbine, I vote Satire. With satire, all rules are out the window.

Kevin Then it shouldn't be classified as a documentary.

UtwigMU
18th October 2003, 20:06
IMO people at positions are not best.

Just like Moore is perhaps not the best person (satire) to be the champion of American "left" (I hate using word left here as it IMO), so it's also sad that GWB is best what American right could have come up with.

KvHagedorn
18th October 2003, 20:32
Originally posted by Gurm
Hey, I just read something interesting.

Did you know that 1/3 of all Germans under the age of 30 (that's 33% for those of you math-challenged) believe that the United States Government purposely destroyed the WTC and Pentagon on September 11?

That's not a joke. That's not a fake number. That's not "arabs who already are prejudiced against Israel". That's GERMAN YOUTH.


No it's not.. that's just saying that 33% of "Germans" under 30 aren't really Germans at all, but muslim foreigners who have been let into the country to take over the place because:

1) REAL Germans are too overcome with greed and self-hatred to reproduce.

2) Greedy pricks who run industry say they "need immigrants" to keep up the labor force and to hell with culture and civil peace when there's a buck to be made.

3) They would be nazis if they didn't let foreigners all come in and rape them in the ass.

Taz-Matt
18th October 2003, 21:14
Ah! Finally someone read and understood before revoking my comments.

As you say Kevin, it's right that the more different sources you have, the more accurate what we think will be. That's why I looked not only at Moore's BFC. That's why I took the time and effort to talk about a dozen different sources in my very long post. Maybe I should look at some TV channels but I am not a TV fan and I don't have cable yet (I'll have it soon though since I work for a cable company) so I'll look at these too every once in a while.

You're also right about the fact that he doesn't follow any rules in his movie and that is so easy to put out some clips of different people back to back and make them say what they didn't say but, at the end of it, consider this Gurm :

Originally posted by Gurm
If I walk into a room filled with people and say "My name is Shiela, I'm a 47-year-old woman, and I just entered menopause!" then nobody is going to listen to a ****ING word I say after that, because I'm clearly lying.
That is totally right but change this for that : "My name is Shiela, I'm a 47 year-old woman, I just entered menopause and I am going to shoot you all right here right now!" (with a rifle in both hands)

Now, do you still care about the fact that I'm lying, about the fact that I am not a woman, my name's not Shiela, etc.? No, I think you would think about the fact that I want to shoot you so, satire or not, lying or not, decieving or not, there are some facts in BFC and that's what I got out of it.

This is my way of showing you that I completely understand your point, but even if somebody is crazy or dumb or lying, I will still see what he as to say before saying it's ALL bullshit like you tried to tell me from the beginning. I think that's also why we thought you were not understanding our point... Now that (I think) you will, I think we don't need to argue if what he says is lying or decieving or the truth. Let's just move on, I think we are starting to waste our time on this thread right now, don't you? :)

Matt.

Gurm
19th October 2003, 05:09
Are we wasting our time? Not really. I simply maintain that since you can't tell what is and isn't truth, and since the MAIN THRUST is a series of carefully constructed lies and deceptions, that you HAVE TO dismiss the source outright, and/or class it as a satire, remove it from the category of "documentary", and relegate it to "gee that makes you think but it's bullshit" status.

It's a test my dad taught me long ago.

If half the things someone tells you are clearly lies, the other half could be the biggest truths in the world, but you just can't take that person seriously anymore, or listen to anything they say.

If only 10% of what someone tells you are lies, you STILL have to be VERY CAREFUL when listening to them.

Since Moore clearly falls into the 50% or greater category...

- Gurm

Wulfman
19th October 2003, 05:11
Originally posted by Gurm
Are we wasting our time? Not really. I simply maintain that since you can't tell what is and isn't truth, and since the MAIN THRUST is a series of carefully constructed lies and deceptions, that you HAVE TO dismiss the source outright, and/or class it as a satire, remove it from the category of "documentary", and relegate it to "gee that makes you think but it's bullshit" status.

It's a test my dad taught me long ago.

If half the things someone tells you are clearly lies, the other half could be the biggest truths in the world, but you just can't take that person seriously anymore, or listen to anything they say.

If only 10% of what someone tells you are lies, you STILL have to be VERY CAREFUL when listening to them.

Since Moore clearly falls into the 50% or greater category...

- Gurm
how do you come along with politicians then? ;)

but what I really wanted to say: Moore himself responded to some of this accusitions on his site (http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/wackoattacko/)


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

"The film depicts NRA president Charlton Heston giving a speech near Columbine; he actually gave it a year later and 900 miles away. The speech he did give is edited to make conciliatory statements sound like rudeness."

Um, yeah, that's right! I made it up! Heston never went there! He never said those things!

Or....

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

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

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

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

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

mfg
wulfman

Novdid
19th October 2003, 06:10
Originally posted by KvHagedorn
No it's not.. that's just saying that 33% of "Germans" under 30 aren't really Germans at all, but muslim foreigners who have been let into the country to take over the place because:

1) REAL Germans are too overcome with greed and self-hatred to reproduce.

2) Greedy pricks who run industry say they "need immigrants" to keep up the labor force and to hell with culture and civil peace when there's a buck to be made.

3) They would be nazis if they didn't let foreigners all come in and rape them in the ass.

Were the hell did you people learn to reply like this???

I'm very glad Americans can't vote over here...

Jammrock
19th October 2003, 08:08
Yes Wulfman, but he still didn't account for the fact that in the middle of the speech that Moore put into his mockumentary that Heston completely changes clothes. And that he spliced in the "cold dead hands" part from a completely different speech.

He also doesn't take into his account that he spliced Heston's speech to make his speech sound like he is completely defiant against Denver. However, if you read the full speech he says that they canceled all the meetings but one. And then goes on to basically say they are excersizing their rights to assembly and free speech and holding their one required by law meeting anyway.

Which in the end makes that portion slanderous yellow journalism. Which makes it a white lie at the least, a full blown lie at the most.

Jammrock

Wulfman
19th October 2003, 08:14
Originally posted by Jammrock
Yes Wulfman, but he still didn't account for the fact that in the middle of the speech that Moore put into his mockumentary that Heston completely changes clothes. And that he spliced in the "cold dead hands" part from a completely different speech.

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

mfg
wulfman

Gurm
19th October 2003, 09:19
Lemme demonstrate AGAIN, since you clearly don't get it.


As for the clip preceding the Denver speech, it is Heston's most well-recognized NRA image. I merely supplied an image crafted for the media, and sometimes shout."

Isn't this fun?

You can clip up ANYONE's speeches to make them say ANYTHING you want. Doesn't mean it's not slander. Slander is a major offense in the media. It gets people disbarred from working in the media FOR LIFE. It's no wonder Moore doesn't want to fess up to it - it would effectively end his career.

The fact that Heston doesn't sue him for libel/slander shows that Heston is the bigger man. If _I_ were Chuck, I'd sue him, I'd win, and I'd make sure Moore never worked in this town again, so to speak.

Are you following? It doesn't matter that Heston "said all those things". What matters is that he didn't say them in the order Moore says he said them in, or when Moore claims he said them.

The entire NRA thing was a HUGE fabrication. Massive. Intended to make the NRA look very very bad, when in reality they were being as nice as an organization like that can possibly be.

It's unforgivably bad journalism. It's called lying. It's called slander.

- Gurm

ZokesPro
19th October 2003, 09:28
Hmm, my questions go un-answered...

Taz-Matt
19th October 2003, 09:46
Originally posted by Gurm
If only 10% of what someone tells you are lies, you STILL have to be VERY CAREFUL when listening to them.

Since Moore clearly falls into the 50% or greater category...

I just want to go back to your "Shiela" Gurm. When you told us about you as Shiela, you made "her" tell 100% lies to explain your point, and I gotta admit that was an excellent example. But when I added the two guns in "her" hands and made "her" say "I'm gonna shoot you all", still, there was about 75% lies in "her" sentence but I'm sure anyone would've listened to "her" in that situation...


Originally posted by Gurm
Are you following? It doesn't matter that Heston "said all those things". What matters is that he didn't say them in the order Moore says he said them in, or when Moore claims he said them.


So you basically say is that even if Heston would've said, "we're gonna shoot plenty of people because they are on our property" for example. But Michael Moore would put that in a movie but not in the same order that Heston told it, you would still reject Moore and not Heston?

Matt.

TransformX
19th October 2003, 09:59
What a woman says:
This place is a mess! C'mon,you and i need to clean up, your stuff is lying on the floor and you'll have no clothes to wear, if we don't do laundry right now!

What a Man Hears:

blah,blah,blah,blah,C'MON
blah,blah,blah,blah,YOU AND I
blah,blah,blah,blah,ON THE FLOOR
blah,blah,blah,blah,NO CLOTHES
blah,blah,blah,blah,RIGHT NOW!

ZokesPro
19th October 2003, 10:26
@TransformX: LOL :D

Gurm
19th October 2003, 12:29
Originally posted by Taz-Matt
I just want to go back to your "Shiela" Gurm. When you told us about you as Shiela, you made "her" tell 100% lies to explain your point, and I gotta admit that was an excellent example. But when I added the two guns in "her" hands and made "her" say "I'm gonna shoot you all", still, there was about 75% lies in "her" sentence but I'm sure anyone would've listened to "her" in that situation...

Sure. Now take away the guns, and INSTEAD have me tell you some absolute truths of the universe.

"Hi, my name is Shiela, I'm a 60 year old woman, I've just finished menopause, and wearing a hat will make you happier!"

Does it really matter if it's true that wearing a hat makes you happier? Not really, since you're pretty sure that I'm a pathological liar.


So you basically say is that even if Heston would've said, "we're gonna shoot plenty of people because they are on our property" for example. But Michael Moore would put that in a movie but not in the same order that Heston told it, you would still reject Moore and not Heston?

Yup. Wanna know why? Because in much of this country, you CAN shoot to protect your property, but in ALL of this country, you CANNOT slander others.

How about if Moore changed it (not so unlikely) to:

"We shoot people. We shoot people PLENTY. We shoot people... because."

That's an admission of a felony! Multiple felonies! Not true, not what Heston said, but admission of a felony ANYWAY. It's also slander, which is itself a felony last time I checked.

- Gurm

KvHagedorn
19th October 2003, 16:39
Originally posted by Novdid
Were the hell did you people learn to reply like this???

I'm very glad Americans can't vote over here...

Likewise.

Being so isolated from external threats to your lives and culture for so long, many Swedes have apparently become quite utterly naive.. no wonder you elected some African girl as Miss Sweden. In your insular PC thinking, this is a good thing, but it only shows your lack of self-worth and the weakness of your sense of survival to the world, and your ripeness for being taken advantage of. You perceive the enemy where he is not, and turn your back to the real one, as he mounts and defiles you.. but then again, some types seem to enjoy this treatment.

Taz-Matt
19th October 2003, 21:00
This is, I think, my last post in here, at least for Gurm, because from what you answered me, I know that you will never look further than the surface. You said it yourself by answering my questions so don't deny this one. And since it is EXACTLY the problem, it won't be of any use to post again in the BFC thread, not even to look back at what you answered to this message Gurm.

I will do just like you, even if there's important truth in what you say from now on, I will ignore it since you can't look into the problem. You are so IN the system that you won't even admit the thruth (even if there are lies and slander) behind this movie (and our society in general). So since it's useless to talk to somebody who never looks futher than the surface, it's useless to point out the bigger problems inside.

What I find bizzare from all your replies Gurm is that most of what you say in other threads is very intelligent and you seem to be very intelligent too, but you don't seem to be able to break the barrier, to open your mind, to see further than Moore. All I've heard from you is (Lying, Slander, Decieving, Michael Moore, BFC). Do you ever go further than this. Do you ever get out of your house? I really didn't want to say this but I thought it was the only thing I could say to your replies. I don't know you and I'd like to know why you think like that but all you give me as an answer is he's a liar, he's a this, he's a that while I'm trying to find out dozens of other sources than Moore and BFC and it's annoying. Do you think that from everyone that doesn't think like you? I want to know but it seems impossible to break the egg and let you out so, I'll use your way of thinking on this one Gurm : why even bother going further.

BTW : I really wanted this discussion to go further but it seems like everytime somebody tries to push it further, somebody answers a thing that takes us to the start again... Like a big revolutionary engine that never starts. So I'm done in here, see you around some other threads. :)

Matt.

Gurm
20th October 2003, 05:26
What other answer do you want?

I'm equally frustrated that you seem to be hell-bent on "digging" for meaning from what is supposed to be a DOCUMENTARY.

I understand that there are problems in this country. There are problems in EVERY country.

I find it astonishing that because I refuse to think the same way that you think, you assume that I'm being shallow or "refusing to look beneath the surface".

I disagree with virtually every "deeper meaning" that you could possibly put forward except the most basic.

Are there problems in the USA? Yes.

Are those problems caused by guns? No.

Are those problems caused by the NRA? No.

Are those problems caused by a basic breakdwon in society, and a lack of willingness to take personal responsibility for our lives and our children? Yes.

Who is to blame for Columbine? In a small part, society as a whole. In a large part, the parents of the kids who did the shooting. Go look in your kid's room. If there are bombs in there, maybe you need a talk, hmm? The kids who did the killing - their rooms were FULL of bomb-making paraphernalia. There's no such thing as "full privacy" for a teenager. I'm sorry. The parents didn't do their DAMN JOBS.

The fact that BFC utterly overlooks this and chooses instead to focus on the LIBERAL assumption that GUNS CAUSE CRIME... is absurd.

What answers do you want from me?

Do you want me to say "Yes, Taz-man. I've seen the light, and there IS a deeper meaning and I'm sorry I focused on Moore's slanderous disregard for the truth?"

Not going to happen.

Just like you're never going to understand (apparently) that I can't take anyone seriously who lies for a living.

- Gurm

Gurm
20th October 2003, 05:30
And as a further note, how stupid does it make YOU look to say:

"You know Gurm, you seem like a really intelligent person, but because you disagree with my opinion, I have decided that you're stupid."

- Gurm

Taz-Matt
20th October 2003, 09:42
Originally posted by Gurm
And as a further note, how stupid does it make YOU look to say:

"You know Gurm, you seem like a really intelligent person, but because you disagree with my opinion, I have decided that you're stupid."

- Gurm
First, I never said you were stupid, now YOU lied and YOU slandered on what I've said to make me look bad. This is YOUR interpretation. Sorry if I hurt you in any way.


Originally posted by Gurm
Are there problems in the USA? Yes.
Are those problems caused by guns? No.
Are those problems caused by the NRA? No.
Never said in the USA only, didn't I say America? Which includes MY country? Did I ever say it's because of the guns? No! Did I say it's because of the NRA? No! They sure didn't help a couple of times but I have no reason to blame it on them! Do I agree with Moore at 100%? No! Never said that! Even there, did Moore say that guns cause crime in BFC? No! He even had arguments that prooved this theory wrong himself and told them in the movie. The movie ends and this question is still unanswered! Did you watch the movie?


Originally posted by Gurm
Do you want me to say "Yes, Taz-man. I've seen the light, and there IS a deeper meaning and I'm sorry I focused on Moore's slanderous disregard for the truth?"
BTW, it's Taz-Matt, not Taz-Man. And no, I didn't want you to conform to my way of thinking. I was waiting for the moment you tell me WHY you think like that, and now you did. But why did you waited until the 66th post to tell me that, if you would've told me from the start : "I don't believe he's right, I do believe that those problems are caused by a basic breakdwon in society, and a lack of willingness to take personal responsibility for our lives and our children." Then I would've said "Now that's a point I agree with you on, and I can understand why you don't bother about BFC since something else is bothering you even more than this movie. Man, that would've ended our "endless" speech.


Originally posted by Gurm
Who is to blame for Columbine? In a small part, society as a whole. In a large part, the parents of the kids who did the shooting. Go look in your kid's room. If there are bombs in there, maybe you need a talk, hmm? The kids who did the killing - their rooms were FULL of bomb-making paraphernalia. There's no such thing as "full privacy" for a teenager. I'm sorry. The parents didn't do their DAMN JOBS.
I'm 100% with you on this one. And I'm happy my parents did their job because I see some other people, the same age as me who are not in a good shape (socially and mentally) as I am. So yes, you are also right on this one!

My only question now is why did you waited so long to tell me that? That is exactly what I was talking about when I said "it seems impossible to break the egg and let you out"! I didn't mean, "You have to conform to my thoughts". That is exactly NOT what I want. I am free to say what I want and I want others to be free too but if you say something, I want to know why, to understand what you say!

BTW : Sorry now if I said something that affected you at any point, that IS not my goal. I just felt it was the only way I could get from you the reason why you thought like this. Now that I know, I do understand you and I won't bother going futher because I understand you (which I couldn't do until the 66th post you wrote). I hope you will do the same and take back the fact that you directly said I was stupid.

Gurm
20th October 2003, 10:19
Ahrm.

I was under the impression... ahh, see you're new.

Sorry!

If you had been here a little longer you would have been treated to one of our previous discussions, in which I held forth AT SOME LENGTH about how the big problem in this soceity is that we BLAME other people.

:)

Hey, sorry for the confusion. I assumed we were all on the same playing field. Now that you know what everyone else knows, makes you wonder why Zokes is still so hell-bent on defending BFC, eh?

- Gurm

P.S. We still like Zokes, though. Just so long as he keeps that avatar.

Taz-Matt
20th October 2003, 11:05
LOL! Zokes' Avatar! hehe!

I understand the fact that you didn't have any background on me to look at and to make you think about why I'm thinking that way!

Just like I said in previous posts, I know you are intelligent because of your other posts in other threads. I even posted some things saying that I agreed with you in some other threads (like the one on David Blaine). So, now that we understand each other, you know that I'm not looking for trouble and you'll notice that through my future posts too.

For Zokes, I don't think he's "hell-bent" on defending BFC. He didn't even involve himself in the last 15+ posts directly. I just think that he was trying, in his way, to explain the same things as i was. The only thing that kept us going further is the lack of understanding between you, JammRock (and some others) and me, Zokes (and some other). We thought we all understood our points until the 66th post! :D LOL, what a mess! hehe!

Anyways! Everything's fine on my side!
I'd just shake hands and move on to another thread now! hehe! :)

BTW : If you don't understand what I write sometimes, just ask me again, french is my primary language so, my english is not perfect... I read, listen to music, tv and work in both french and english at my job thaugh, so that will help! Oh! And I hope he won't be frustrated that I've said that but, I'm Zokes roommate since August, we are friends since high school (about 10 years now so that's why we think alike for some things)! :)

Matt.

GNEP
20th October 2003, 11:18
Welcome aboard then Taz-Matt :)

Taz-Matt
20th October 2003, 11:45
Originally posted by GNEP
Welcome aboard then Taz-Matt :)
Thank you GNEP! :)

ZokesPro
21st October 2003, 05:16
Originally posted by Gurm
Now that you know what everyone else knows, makes you wonder why Zokes is still so hell-bent on defending BFC, eh?

- Gurm

P.S. We still like Zokes, though. Just so long as he keeps that avatar.


Originally posted by Taz-Matt
For Zokes, I don't think he's "hell-bent" on defending BFC. He didn't even involve himself in the last 15+ posts directly. I just think that he was trying, in his way, to explain the same things as i was. The only thing that kept us going further is the lack of understanding between you, JammRock (and some others) and me, Zokes (and some other). We thought we all understood our points until the 66th post! :D LOL, what a mess! hehe!

Matt. Hey look at that! I don't even have to type anything, it's all right there in Taz-Matt's post. :)

Oh, and just so you hear it from me, I was never defending BFC. (even though our opinions are rather similar, but that is purely coincidental, I did seriously think about all this)

And hey, surprise surprise, my questions STILL go un-answered. *sigh* Why is that? Are those "facts" (and I use the term loosely) real or fake? That's all I want to know, I'm not trying to prove a point or anything, if that's what your worried about.

Edit: changed a 9 for a ( and there was missing an r somewhere.

Gurm
21st October 2003, 07:18
I fail to see the relevance of your question. Some of those facts are essentially true. Others are gross oversimplifications, bordering on the absurd. What's your point?

- Gurm

ZokesPro
21st October 2003, 13:27
Originally posted by Gurm
I fail to see the relevance of your question. Some of those facts are essentially true. Others are gross oversimplifications, bordering on the absurd. What's your point?

- Gurm Huh??? There's no point to my question, just wanted answers, that's all.

Gurm
21st October 2003, 18:50
Oh ok.

- Gurm

Joel
4th November 2003, 11:49
Hate to bring this back up but thought some may find this interesting.


Last March, the Motion Picture Academy gave Michael Moore an award for what it thought was a documentary. Now the faux working-class hero is going to have to fess up about his "documentary" in a court of law.

James Nichols, the brother of Terry Nichols of the Oklahoma City bombing case, has filed a lawsuit against Moore. He says Moore committed defamation of character, invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Nichols alleges that Moore tricked him into appearing in "Bowling for Columbine" by misrepresenting the purpose of the interview. He claims that Moore defamed him by erroneously connecting him to the Oklahoma City bombing. The lawsuit seeks $10 million to $20 million for each of nine counts.

Nichols is not alone in his charges. Others also have accused Moore of misrepresenting segments of the film as factual when the scenes were allegedly partially staged.

Well, it looks as if Moore has enough dough these days to play litigation games. At least he's living a lifestyle that says he does.

He has been spotted flying around California in a private jet and riding in one of those pariah SUVs. The anti-Second Amendment crusader also has had the luxury of bodyguard protection. Word has it that AOL Time Warner et al. provided the funding for the high-priced frills.

Moore told the Los Angeles Times that it was OK to indulge in the Enron-like excess because he "would never pay for this."

Joel

ZokesPro
4th November 2003, 12:19
Indeed it is interesting. Do you have a link?

KvHagedorn
4th November 2003, 18:09
LOL.. hypocrite.

Some suggested lame excuses for the private jet:

"I got it just to chase Roger's private jet! You know I'm one of the common people, tirelessly devoted to their cause! (wink wink, nudge nudge)"

"Oh, that.. well I got it to airlift medical supplies to poor sick children in central America. (snicker)"

"I thought I would do charity work for poor young men from developing nations who want to learn to fly. (maybe they will destroy more bastions of evil American capitalism.. hehehe.)"

"Oh, that's not mine.. I just, uh.. borrowed it when I was in Texas (and someone recognized me.. I had to get out of there fast!)"

:D

ZokesPro
4th November 2003, 20:44
Originally posted by KvHagedorn
LOL.. hypocrite.

Some suggested lame excuses for the private jet:

"I got it just to chase Roger's private jet! You know I'm one of the common people, tirelessly devoted to their cause! (wink wink, nudge nudge)"

"Oh, that.. well I got it to airlift medical supplies to poor sick children in central America. (snicker)"

"I thought I would do charity work for poor young men from developing nations who want to learn to fly. (maybe they will destroy more bastions of evil American capitalism.. hehehe.)"

"Oh, that's not mine.. I just, uh.. borrowed it when I was in Texas (and someone recognized me.. I had to get out of there fast!)"

:D :confused: