#18085
2003-05-17 4:31 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734 Likes: 2
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
|
|
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734 Likes: 2 |
its easy to do when you blindly beieve idiots like Michael Moore...
|
|
|
#18086
2003-05-17 8:12 PM
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 19,546 Likes: 1
living in 1962 15000+ posts
|
|
living in 1962 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 19,546 Likes: 1 |
Doctor, I believe you can hand Frogman the retard chart. . . ![[nyah hah]](images/icons/tongue.gif)
|
|
|
#18087
2003-05-17 9:41 PM
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 34,398 Likes: 38
"Hey this is PCG342's bro..." 15000+ posts
|
|
"Hey this is PCG342's bro..." 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 34,398 Likes: 38 |
![[no no no]](graemlins/nono.gif) Poor Frogman.
|
|
|
#18088
2003-05-18 2:46 AM
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734 Likes: 2
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
|
|
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734 Likes: 2 |
he'll learn like the others before him....
|
|
|
#18089
2003-05-18 3:46 AM
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 105
100+ posts
|
|
100+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 105 |
Its funny how you people try to get away from the Toppics theme actually wich is the main reason I tried to slow to flaming down.
The fun thing is I dont even like Moore. I think its plain unessesary what he does. He got no message then "see what dumb mofos we are" and is completely unimportant thus.
I just dont think you people can get around some of the basic facts of what he presented i Bowling.
He set out to show some specific things and he managed to do so. He didnt bribe annyone (to my knowledge)to say specific things or anything like that.
If I am not mistaken its his goddamn right to make that kind of movie in the USA and its your godamn right not NOT watch it or to make an "In scene reply" to it.
This crappy bashing here does nothing to further a debatte. You are just bashing out and get pissed when someone disagrees with you. Not very mature.
|
|
|
#18090
2003-05-18 3:48 AM
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 105
100+ posts
|
|
100+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 105 |
oh and now back to the standart level of posting on this board.
I just HAD to hand me my own ass as you people are such incredibly retarded assholes that it would have taken to long to wait for you to do it.
|
|
|
#18091
2003-05-18 2:07 PM
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 19,546 Likes: 1
living in 1962 15000+ posts
|
|
living in 1962 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 19,546 Likes: 1 |
quote:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Fragman: Its funny how you people try to get away from the Toppics theme actually wich is the main reason I tried to slow to flaming down.
Ok, first of all, you have yet to show anyone here that you even understand what the topic of this thread is about. You were the first one to move away from the topic and have made no attempt whatsoever to even figure out that your comments to date have had nothing to do with it.
The topic is this thread is not about Moore's political stance. This is not even the forum for discussing political stances. The point of this thread is about Moore's misuse of the term "documentary" when he has purposely altered facts to tell a story that he wants to tell. That's not making a documentary or "presenting things as they are." There's a term for that. It's called fiction.
quote:
This crappy bashing here does nothing to further a debatte. You are just bashing out and get pissed when someone disagrees with you. Not very mature.
Ohhhh, the irony. Who was the one who began the bashing? I believe they were getting all pissy and saying something about people just being mad because "Moore stepped on their toes". . .and who was the one got pissed when people "disagreed" with them? Why that was all you, Frogman.
When the started of this topic pointed out to you that your posts were completely irrelevant and asked you to post on topic, you got all pissy and spoke about "putting bullets in your faggot head." You have no room to talk about people being mature.
So take your retard chart and sit down. Your mom will be here to take you home soon.
|
|
|
#18092
2003-05-19 3:00 AM
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 105
100+ posts
|
|
100+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 105 |
Ahh I see. Asuming someone is pissed because Moore steped on their toes is flaming on this board allready?
Very cute.
And while I post perfectly om toppic I am 100% sure we wouldnt have this debatte if Moore had YOUR politcal agenda and made an "Documentary" about that one.What a bunch of hypocrits.
|
|
|
#18093
2003-05-19 3:07 AM
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 19,546 Likes: 1
living in 1962 15000+ posts
|
|
living in 1962 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 19,546 Likes: 1 |
And where have you posted "om toppic"? Not in this thread.
For the last time, it's not about Moore's politics.
|
|
|
#18094
2003-05-19 3:23 AM
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 105
100+ posts
|
|
100+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 105 |
|
|
|
#18095
2003-05-19 3:33 AM
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734 Likes: 2
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
|
|
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734 Likes: 2 |
|
|
|
#18096
2003-05-19 3:54 AM
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 19,546 Likes: 1
living in 1962 15000+ posts
|
|
living in 1962 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 19,546 Likes: 1 |
another one bites the dust. . .
|
|
|
#18097
2003-05-18 4:11 PM
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,142
5000+ posts
|
|
5000+ posts
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,142 |
Moore certainly doesn't step on my toes with his beliefs. I agree with most of his stances. It's the fact that he uses his movies to promote himself as the ultimate folk hero and distorts facts to present his case that I hold against him.
|
|
|
#18098
2003-05-18 5:17 PM
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 24,593
Timelord. Drunkard. 15000+ posts
|
|
Timelord. Drunkard. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 24,593 |
quote:
Originally posted by Grimm:
For the last time, it's not about Moore's politics.
quote:
Originally posted by Fragman:
of course it is.
Grimm, I think he already has his retard chart...... tatooed on his fucking forehead.
As I've said before, I don't care what Moore's political views are. I just don't like the way he distorts facts and tries to pass it off as the truth. The term documentary implies that it is a factual look at a subject and not a fictional account like a sci-fi movie or a buddy cop flick. Moore bastardizes the art form to fulfill his own agenda. That's why I'm disagreeing with what he does. If he implied that guns are only dangerous if shot on Thursday, I'd be just as against him for distorting those facts too.
Frogman, you have yet posted on topic in this thread (or "om" topic. whichever you prefer). You've come close but haven't made it. You initiated the flaming. Now, you have to take your medicine. Usually, if something got this off topic in a thread, I'd lock it up and move on. But, in this instance I'm giving the green light for the Nature Boyz to run wild. That is, if Nature Boyz really existed. ![[wink]](images/icons/wink.gif)
|
|
|
#18099
2003-05-18 5:22 PM
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 105
100+ posts
|
|
100+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 105 |
What a bunch of whakoes. I wonder of you run wild like this when you see the next documentary on the Discovery channel where someone presents "things as fact" without taking the aproack you think is more fit.
Hypocrits.
the one and only reason you get pissed of by Moore is that you dont agree with what he says. And to make it worse people dig it. Had he used the same way of presenting his facts in a Documentary about Ants in Vicaragua you wouldnt have bothered. But in this case he pissed on you. Listening to yer crap here makes me wanna do the same.
|
|
|
#18100
2003-05-18 5:34 PM
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 24,593
Timelord. Drunkard. 15000+ posts
|
|
Timelord. Drunkard. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 24,593 |
quote:
Originally posted by Fragman:
What a bunch of whakoes. I wonder of you run wild like this when you see the next documentary on the Discovery channel where someone presents "things as fact" without taking the aproack you think is more fit.
Hypocrits.
The Discovery channel doesn't take several different quotes from ants on several different subjects and edit them together to make it sound like the ants saying something complete opposite of what they have said. Nor does it try to depict that ants as being heartless about high school children being killed.
Here's the break down, Frogman, Moore LIED in a medium that is supposed to present truth. As I've said before, bias generally leaks into all documentaries, but Moore intentionally poured it on himself. If you can't understand that this is what the thread is all about, then maybe you should participate in the discussion.
|
|
|
#18101
2003-05-18 5:40 PM
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 105
100+ posts
|
|
100+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 105 |
OK thats intresting. Can you back that up?
|
|
|
#18102
2003-05-18 5:43 PM
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 24,593
Timelord. Drunkard. 15000+ posts
|
|
Timelord. Drunkard. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 24,593 |
quote:
Originally posted by Fragman:
OK thats intresting. Can you back that up?
The fact that he's lied and falsified information?
|
|
|
#18103
2003-05-18 5:48 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734 Likes: 2
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
|
|
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734 Likes: 2 |
quote:
Originally posted by Fragman:
What a bunch of whakoes. I wonder of you run wild like this when you see the next documentary on the Discovery channel where someone presents "things as fact" without taking the aproack you think is more fit.
Hypocrits.
the one and only reason you get pissed of by Moore is that you dont agree with what he says. And to make it worse people dig it. Had he used the same way of presenting his facts in a Documentary about Ants in Vicaragua you wouldnt have bothered. But in this case he pissed on you. Listening to yer crap here makes me wanna do the same.
so you admit your a hypocrite! thank you for playing....
|
|
|
#18104
2003-05-18 6:13 PM
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,142
5000+ posts
|
|
5000+ posts
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,142 |
Froggy completely ignored what I said. How nice of him.
|
|
|
#18105
2003-05-18 6:14 PM
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 24,593
Timelord. Drunkard. 15000+ posts
|
|
Timelord. Drunkard. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 24,593 |
quote:
Originally posted by Kristogar Velo:
Froggy completely ignored what I said. How nice of him.
Haven't you noticed that he's been ignoring everything we've all said?
|
|
|
#18106
2003-05-18 6:22 PM
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 19,546 Likes: 1
living in 1962 15000+ posts
|
|
living in 1962 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 19,546 Likes: 1 |
quote:
Originally posted by Fragman:
OK thats intresting. Can you back that up?
Well, Froggie, had you bothered to read anything anyone was saying here, you would know that several people have already posted that information.
quote:
Originally posted by Registered Member #552:
Here's a link detailing some... uh, "liberties" Moore took with the facts surrounding Bowling For Columbine.
http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html
As for the repeated use of the term "Hypocrites", I have only one thing to say: "Hello, kettle, you're black. . ."
|
|
|
#18107
2003-05-18 10:12 PM
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,447
2000+ posts
|
|
2000+ posts
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,447 |
First, no one would give a shit about Moore's "lies" if he didn't make that speech at the academy awards. The fact is, Moore distorted the facts and lied, but it's only because of his political views that this thread even exists. That "truth about Moore" website probably didn't even exist until after his speech. There are probably a lot of documentaries that distort things in this way. But the only reason this example stands out, is because Moore doesn't support the war. I heard nothing of these "lies" before the academy awards.
Second, 'Bowling for Columbine' wasn't supposed to be objective. Moore took a stance and gathered facts to support it. Documentaries on facts are supposed to be objective, but bowling for Columbine was about Moore's opinion, it wasn't supposed to be objective.
|
|
|
#18108
2003-05-18 10:18 PM
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,142
5000+ posts
|
|
5000+ posts
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,142 |
I knew a helluva lot about Moore before he made that speech. I saw Roger and Me, The Big One, TV Nation and The Awful Truth, and read his books. Moore's not a nobody that wasn't even noticed until he won an Oscar, he's been a hot subject of controversy for 15 years. I don't know about that specific site, but there were definitely "truth about Moore" sites that existed LONG before the Oscars.
|
|
|
#18109
2003-05-18 10:43 PM
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 24,593
Timelord. Drunkard. 15000+ posts
|
|
Timelord. Drunkard. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 24,593 |
quote:
Originally posted by JQ:
First, no one would give a shit about Moore's "lies" if he didn't make that speech at the academy awards. The fact is, Moore distorted the facts and lied, but it's only because of his political views that this thread even exists. That "truth about Moore" website probably didn't even exist until after his speech. There are probably a lot of documentaries that distort things in this way. But the only reason this example stands out, is because Moore doesn't support the war. I heard nothing of these "lies" before the academy awards.
One, I've known who Moore is long before Columbine. As Velo said, he's been in the public eye for well over a decade. He's published books, had his TV show, and made movies (and I've already admitted that I think Canadian Bacon is funny despite his politics because it is up front fiction). People are not just reacting to Moore since the Oscars, they've been reacting to him for years because he's up front and vocal. I've already conceided that most documentaries are skewed, but I've further pointed out the extreme measures that Moore's used to skew his own films.
And the reason this thread exists is not because of his Oscar speech. Read the post that started this thread. Moore's getting funding for another "documentary" where he's going to look at the Bush Administration and 9/11. I started this thread because I don't think he has the ability to look at it objectively and present a well rounded film about the event.
I haven't, or at least I've tried not to, blast someone in this thread because their political views are different from mine. My last roommate was a Green while I'm more Conservative centered (but not Republican) and we were able to get along fine and even have political debates without it getting out of hand. I have gotten angry at people who haven't been able to grasp that this is more of an artistic than political debate. Facts have been presented on the side that I stand, which says that Moore altered and made up facts to discredit his ability to be objective. I have yet to see anyone of the opposing view to support themselves with facts. Instead, they've just thrown out that we're pissed off because apparently we're pro gun and killing people and he's not. It's a poor argument for the wrong debate.
quote:
Originally posted by JQ:
Second, 'Bowling for Columbine' wasn't supposed to be objective. Moore took a stance and gathered facts to support it. Documentaries on facts are supposed to be objective, but bowling for Columbine was about Moore's opinion, it wasn't supposed to be objective.
Two, Moore did not "gather" facts to support his opinion in the movie. He purposefully altered and fabricated a lot of his information. He mislead the audience with slight of hand editing tricks and out right lies. And he labeled it a documentary, which is, by definition, supposed to be a displaying of the facts. I know the further along the road we get more and more "documentarians" are actually just presenting their own views, but that doesn't mean that they are staying true to the form of that medium or should even be classified in it. The further it skews from objectivity, the less of a documentary it is. And Moore's is way too far off of the facts to be presented as a documentary. There are plenty of facts out there he could have found to support his view; instead he simply manufactured his own. That's what this topic is about. That's why I'm not happy with Moore. And if was only supposed to be about his opinion, why did he try and make it seem as though the decision at the end was supposed to be up to the viewer?
|
|
|
#18110
2003-05-19 12:44 AM
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,447
2000+ posts
|
|
2000+ posts
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,447 |
I never said you guys didn't know about Moore before his oscar speech. I think most people had seen his bestseller books, his documentaries, and his movie(s?). I was trying to say that most people weren't outraged by his "lies" before his Oscar speech.
Doctor: You have been "blasting" people for their political views. "Frog man?" That sounds like Rush Limbaugh or Michael Savage. I just can't put into words how stupid all this anti-French crap is.
Would it be fair to say this: Moore distorted the facts in Bowling for Columbine, and will put a big liberal spin on his new documentary. But most of his bad publicity comes from his oscar speech and his anti-war stance?
BTW, I'm not a liberal.
|
|
|
#18111
2003-05-19 1:57 AM
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 24,593
Timelord. Drunkard. 15000+ posts
|
|
Timelord. Drunkard. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 24,593 |
quote:
Originally posted by JQ:
Doctor: You have been "blasting" people for their political views. "Frog man?" That sounds like Rush Limbaugh or Michael Savage. I just can't put into words how stupid all this anti-French crap is.
I've know about Moore for years and how he twists things to fit his own view. I can't speak for the rest of the people on this board, though. But I started this topic (which is what I was referring to and not everyone else in any other topic or forum) not due to his speech but simply the information that he was getting ready to do another film.
As for my use of "Frogman," it's not an anti-French statement. His screen name is "Fragman." I simply was replacing the "o" vowel for the first "a" vowel, that's all. It wasn't supposed to be making fun of the French. It's just a little internet tooling. His location clearly states him as being in Germany, anyway. And I believe that was a prime example of why there has been so much flaming on this board; because a select few have misinterpreted the reason for this topic and what is being said in it. So I still stand by my assertion that I have not blasted anyone for their political views. Just them being stupid asses for not paying attention. (And yes, I'm looking at you.)
quote:
Originally posted by JQ:
Would it be fair to say this: Moore distorted the facts in Bowling for Columbine, and will put a big liberal spin on his new documentary. But most of his bad publicity comes from his oscar speech and his anti-war stance?
Partially. Like I said, he's had bad publicity for years. It's just now a little more noticable. All that's being said now has really been said over and over again about him. The publicity is the same, it's just that more people are seeing it now.
quote:
Originally posted by JQ:
BTW, I'm not a liberal.
BTW, I never said you were.
|
|
|
#18112
2003-05-19 1:58 AM
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 19,546 Likes: 1
living in 1962 15000+ posts
|
|
living in 1962 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 19,546 Likes: 1 |
No, because anyone with any knowledge of the situation has known that Moore's been doing this since his first well known "documentary", Roger and Me. I can remember reading articles in Time magazine about the distortions he made in that film.
I also remember one film school teacher of mine repeatedly mentioning Moore's use of editing to alter the facts before screening the film in class.
There are likely a lot of people out there who are just pissed because of his Oscar speech. But as we've said on NUMEROUS OCCASIONS now, that's not the point of this thread.
|
|
|
#18113
2003-05-19 10:13 AM
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 105
100+ posts
|
|
100+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 105 |
OK lets take a look on the author of the afore mentioned page. Just to get straight who we deal with. quote:
My work now largely focuses on firearms and first and second amendment issues -- rights to free speech and to bear arms. Some of my scribblings can be found on the World Wide Web--
Thats who we deal with here so dont expect him to deal with this neutral. But my personal favorit.
quote:
P.S.: I don't have Moore's $4 million budget (and just got a $233 bill from my ISP for exceeding download limits -- this page has had 300,924 hits in two months), but if you could see the way to contribute ten or twenty dollars to this research, and to preparing a real documentary, please click below.
OK so we deal with an atorney who is fighting for his right to bear arms and who is going to prepare a "real documentary" if you give him your money.
Thats the person we deal with.
I looked into his "proofs".
Most of the stuff is pretty obviously the way you make movies. You cut,you edit you give it an overhaul. Moore made a documentary not a reportage. Its perfectly legit for him to cut the stuff like he pleases. I cant judge if he crossed a line to being unfair at all. Ill grant you that some of the things do look weird thuogh. Still. The general way of operating is simply the way people make movies. Its standart practice.
But what botheres me the mostis the simple fact that I see nothing that gives me the impresion he is even trying to play fair here. He uses the same thing he acuses Moore of using.
quote:
Bowling is fiction. It makes its points by deceiving and by misleading the viewer. Statements are made which are false. Moore leads the reader to draw inferences which he must have known were wrong. Indeed, even speeches shown on screen are heavily edited, so that sentences are assembled in the speaker's voice, but which he never uttered. Bowling uses deliberate deception as its primary tool of persuasion and effect.
Here we have the main point the author tries to make. He rushes around in some minor formulations about rocket bases etc. Is what Moore said totaly far out at that point? Or better said. Is it THAT far away from what the author himself figgured out about the very same site? No it isnt. Actually Moore said nothing wrong at all. Yet the Author hands you out the impression that Moore told you a lie here.
Btu fact is the entire opening part makes no sense whatsoever. Still he wants us to believe Moore lied here.
Ill stop here cause this may get to long.
But fact is we have someone with an questionable agenda doing exact the same thing he acuses Moore to do. His "proofs" are none and the few points he makes are used misleading to give us the impressnio his stuff is wellbased. That EXACTLY what he acuses Moore.
Sorry. I have seen Pages like that and they arent worth anything.
|
|
|
#18114
2003-05-19 10:50 AM
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 24,593
Timelord. Drunkard. 15000+ posts
|
|
Timelord. Drunkard. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 24,593 |
Never did I say that this guy didn't have bias himself. But he does point out some facts about Moore's film none the less. And if you know anything about Moore's style of filmmaking, you'd know that all that this man has stated is right on the mark.
Yes, filmmakers edit films. There's no other way to make one. But in making a documentary, it's not as common a practice as you think to edit three different speeches together to make one speech with a different message than the speaker ever gave. That is crossing a line in documentaries. And stating that a factory makes rockets for weapons of mass destruction when it really makes rockets to launch sattelites so that your cell phone or Direct TV works is far off from the truth.
As I've repeatidly said, I don't like Moore's style of "documentary." They're convoluted and greatly inaccurate. Though, I must admit that he's a master at what he does. He's learned the art of filmmaking and has developed a style that uses all of its tricks to his benefit. I do think he deserves an Oscar for it, but not for a documentary film.
And finally, someone else posts on topic.
|
|
|
#18115
2003-05-19 11:19 AM
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 105
100+ posts
|
|
100+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 105 |
Yeah but see those rockets cann still be used as weapons. Its monir atachments and its a bomb.
Isnt that pretty much the way Saddams people argued when some rockets where found? The SUA said those where going launch weapons of massdestruction while Irak said they where not.
So Does truth depend on how we can use a fact better to manipulate the masses or what?
|
|
|
#18116
2003-05-19 11:55 AM
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 24,593
Timelord. Drunkard. 15000+ posts
|
|
Timelord. Drunkard. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 24,593 |
Throw a drawer full of silverware into a microwave and that shit will blow up too. Does that mean GE is manufacturing bombs to be sold to every household? Not in the least bit.
Also, the comparison of a company under government contract and which is monitored cannot be compared to a rogue country who prevented itself from being monitored and had been shown to have rockets that they weren't supposed to or even admitted having.
Moore clearly told a lie.
|
|
|
#18117
2003-05-19 1:07 PM
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 105
100+ posts
|
|
100+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 105 |
Well I dont think I will agree with you on that. And the Saddam was more monitored then any dictator in the history of mankind.
And I dont see how Moore lied annyways. He presented the simple fact that those rockets have been and can be used as weapons. So where is the lie?
|
|
|
#18118
2003-05-19 2:53 PM
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 24,593
Timelord. Drunkard. 15000+ posts
|
|
Timelord. Drunkard. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 24,593 |
He said that the factory was at that time producing weapons of mass destruction (not implying it) when they were not. In English one of the definitions of a lie is when you say something is happening when it is not. I'd say Moore's comment falls into that category.
|
|
|
#18119
2003-05-19 6:47 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734 Likes: 2
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
|
|
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734 Likes: 2 |
|
|
|
#18120
2003-05-19 9:58 PM
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 34,398 Likes: 38
"Hey this is PCG342's bro..." 15000+ posts
|
|
"Hey this is PCG342's bro..." 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 34,398 Likes: 38 |
I haven't seen a beating this one-sided since Buster Douglas fought Evander Holyfield...
|
|
|
#18121
2003-05-19 11:11 PM
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,447
2000+ posts
|
|
2000+ posts
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,447 |
Thedoctor: quote:
Partially. Like I said, he's had bad publicity for years. It's just now a little more noticable. All that's being said now has really been said over and over again about him. The publicity is the same, it's just that more people are seeing it now.
Ok, I agee with you.
But I still believe you guys have a bias against Moore's stances. Would you react this way if he was fasifying information to show how the U.S. is justified in it's war effort and Iraq is a major threat to the U.S?
|
|
|
#18122
2003-05-19 11:40 PM
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 24,593
Timelord. Drunkard. 15000+ posts
|
|
Timelord. Drunkard. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 24,593 |
Yes, as I stated earlies, I would. A documentary presents facts not creates them. That's why I'm against Moore. For his misuse of the medium.
|
|
|
#18123
2003-05-19 11:53 PM
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,142
5000+ posts
|
|
5000+ posts
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,142 |
I've stated earlier that I have some similar beliefs as Moore, but I don't like his methods.
|
|
|
#18124
2003-05-20 7:29 AM
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 105
100+ posts
|
|
100+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 105 |
quote:
He said that the factory was at that time producing weapons of mass destruction (not implying it) when they were not. In English one of the definitions of a lie is when you say something is happening when it is not. I'd say Moore's comment falls into that category.
It would have been more precise to say they build part os weapons of mass destruction.
Hardly a lie.
And just to make clear how biased you I gotta ask why you asume Moore lied? What makes you think he doesnt simply have better sources then you do? Why do you hide behind empty phrases to bash Moore?
The page you gave a link to doesnt deal with that idea. I am in fact pretty sure the guy who runs the page left out sources that may have given the impression Mooer didnt lie just to bash him.
Sorry dude. You are totaly and utterly biased and wouldnt be fair with Moore if he was the last person on earth with you.
|
|
|
|
|
