Michael Moore is planning a new work: "Fahrenheit 9-11"

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: tcsenter
lol! Much of the same defenses of Moore destroyed in the following discussion:

[ much pompous nonsense -- all unsupported with documentation -- deleted ]

I could go on, refuting virtually every minute of Moore's propaganda flick from start to finish, but with Moore's long history of habitual deception, gross errors of fact, logic, and reason being so easily revealed with only the slightest of fact-checking and logical tests, provided one were minimally inclined to, I often wonder to what end it would serve. Moore-lovers seem to have taken some pledge of willfull ignorance and defiance of truth.

This is not a case where all available evidence merely lends no support to Moore's hypothesis while failing to disprove it. Rather, all available evidence conclusively deals a FATAL BLOW to Moore's delusional views, reducing those who believe in them to the level of Holocaust Deniers. Except, I would submit that Holocaust Deniers have built a stronger case than Moore, though no less false or detached from reality. In any case, either Bradley Smith or Walter Duranty would be fiercely proud to have Moore in their corner.

Though, I can't help wonder, would the Academy give an Oscar to a Holocaust Denial film, let alone even accept its nomination? It would surely meet all the criteria, according to the Academy's new de facto standard for documentary film-making.

LOL. Lots of bluster. Zero substance.

Since you provide no documentation to back these claims, one assumes you expect us to take your word for it. Sorry, tcsenter, you'll have to do better than that. You have a record of making all sorts of ridiculous claims. When challenged with facts, however, you call names or run away rather than acknowledging your mistakes. That equals zero credibility.

I'm sincerely willing to believe Columbine is littered with inaccuracies. I need a little more than "because I said so" before I'm going to change my mind. If Columbine is so bad, someone, somewhere, must have done his homework and carefully documented the contradictory evidence. That's what I'd like to see. Empty rants like this post from tcsenter only fuel the impression that the objections are to the message itself, not to its accuracy.


(PS. Still waiting for that proof just as soon as you got home ... weeks ago, or the "due time" many months ago.)

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: tcsenter
lol! Much of the same defenses of Moore destroyed in the following discussion:

[ much pompous nonsense -- all unsupported with documentation -- deleted ]

I could go on, refuting virtually every minute of Moore's propaganda flick from start to finish, but with Moore's long history of habitual deception, gross errors of fact, logic, and reason being so easily revealed with only the slightest of fact-checking and logical tests, provided one were minimally inclined to, I often wonder to what end it would serve. Moore-lovers seem to have taken some pledge of willfull ignorance and defiance of truth.

This is not a case where all available evidence merely lends no support to Moore's hypothesis while failing to disprove it. Rather, all available evidence conclusively deals a FATAL BLOW to Moore's delusional views, reducing those who believe in them to the level of Holocaust Deniers. Except, I would submit that Holocaust Deniers have built a stronger case than Moore, though no less false or detached from reality. In any case, either Bradley Smith or Walter Duranty would be fiercely proud to have Moore in their corner.

Though, I can't help wonder, would the Academy give an Oscar to a Holocaust Denial film, let alone even accept its nomination? It would surely meet all the criteria, according to the Academy's new de facto standard for documentary film-making.

LOL. Lots of bluster. Zero substance.

Since you provide no documentation to back these claims, one assumes you expect us to take your word for it. Sorry, tcsenter, you'll have to do better than that. You have a record of making all sorts of ridiculous claims. When challenged with facts, however, you call names or run away rather than acknowledging your mistakes. That equals zero credibility.

I'm sincerely willing to believe Columbine is littered with inaccuracies. I need a little more than "because I said so" before I'm going to change my mind. If Columbine is so bad, someone, somewhere, must have done his homework and carefully documented the contradictory evidence. That's what I'd like to see. Empty rants like this post from tcsenter only fuel the impression that the objections are to the message itself, not to its accuracy.


(PS. Still waiting for that proof just as soon as you got home ... weeks ago, or the "due time" many months ago.)

www.bowlingfortruth.com/

http://www.spinsanity.org/post.html?2003_09_21_archive.html#106429368980662837

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

http://www.nrahq.org/publications/tag/feature6.asp

I hope thats good for starters.

 

[NightCrawler]

Even if I was a liberal I just can't believe anything that Michael Moore says cause he twist the truth so much to fit his agenda.

 

[Bowfinger]

I hate it when people give me homework!

Originally posted by: Tabb
www.bowlingfortruth.com/

This seemed to have strong potential, but it eventually disappoints. The author obviously put a lot of work into this site. Unfortunately, there is no pretense of objectivity. Calling Moore an asshole and hypocrite, for example, clearly reveals the author's strong bias. I do think he raises several interesting points, e.g., re. the bank scene. He makes several claims contradicting Moore's story, and mentions a subsequent interview with the woman in the film refuting certain impressions left by Moore. He does not provide substantiating links, however, so there is no easy way to verify these claims. I want to follow up on this further. If the interview is real, it should be out there somewhere.

The other problem with this site is it spends so much time attacking Moore's message and presentation rather than inaccuracies. It is apparent the author doesn't like Moore and disagrees with the film, but that's irrelevant to its accuracy. The author also wastes everyone's time by nitpicking minutia, e.g., whether the proper term is Moore's "bald-faced lie" or his own "bold-faced lie". Each instance is small, but they are all over the site, and they distract from any substance.

http://www.spinsanity.org/post.html?2003_09_21_archive.html#106429368980662837

These are all discussed in my reply to alchemize earlier in this thread.

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

This one is pretty good. I need to spend more time following the links, but it seems to make a much more objective case, supports most of it points with documentation, and narrows its focus to specific claims of misleading information rather than a shotgun denunciation of everything he doesn't like about the movie. They make a persuasive case that Columbine is more infotainment than objective documentary, a claim I am largely willing to accept.

http://www.nrahq.org/publications/tag/feature6.asp

This NRA piece started out pretty well, similar to the HardyLaw piece above except without corroborating links. Unfortunately, it deteriorates into another rant against Moore's message instead of focusing on its factual accuracy. It's no surprise the NRA disagrees with Moore's opinions -- I thought Columbine was over the top sometimes myself -- but that doesn't mean it is inaccurate.

I hope thats good for starters.

Works for me. As I suggested in my earlier post, I need to see Columbine again so I can get a better feel for how significant and material these issues are within the overall context of the film. I don't remember interpreting it nearly as literally as these folks seem too, but I only saw it once a long time ago. (We actually watched it in a theater, something we rarely do these days.)

You and alc have raised enough questions that I will no longer defend Columbine as accurate until I can do more of my own research. Thanks for raising my awareness. Nonetheless, I think much of the vitriol against Moore comes from disliking his message, not from the gross lies and other evil deeds claimed by some.

 

[Witling]

Cerb, my awe and congratulations. There is only one entry in this thread that acknowledges Bradbury. I won't mention his first name, the title of his book, or the theme of it. Hey folks, just keep those opinions commin' in. Your's is a least as good as the next one.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Whitling
Cerb, my awe and congratulations. There is only one entry in this thread that acknowledges Bradbury. I won't mention his first name, the title of his book, or the theme of it. Hey folks, just keep those opinions commin' in. Your's is a least as good as the next one.

Ray Bradbury, Fahrenheit 451, oppressive future society where ignorance is mandated, TV is state-controlled and omnipresent, and books are subversive. I thought the reference is obvious. What am I missing?

I'd comment about the parallels, but we know where that leads here.

 

[Genesys]

Originally posted by: NightCrawler

Originally posted by: Genesys

Originally posted by: B00ne

Originally posted by: NightCrawler

Bush has brought toughness back to US diplomacy. I could care less if it makes the french get all pissy or any other european countries. I want the United States to lead and be in charge not be a bitch to the United Nations.

We are the only remaining Super Power and we ought to act like it, these little tyrants that want to give us the finger should get what they deserve.

Jawohl, mein Führer.

und keine eier

Always the lame Nazi assertion...sigh

wtf are you talking about?

 

[tcsenter]

Since you provide no documentation to back these claims, one assumes you expect us to take your word for it. Sorry, tcsenter, you'll have to do better than that. You have a record of making all sorts of ridiculous claims. When challenged with facts, however, you call names or run away rather than acknowledging your mistakes. That equals zero credibility.

You're confused. That would be you who has no record of credibility.

I have provided these sources in two dozen or better Moore threads. Even when I provide them, published independent or government sources, your response has been exactly the same; "Ha! That's a lot of bluster. Those sources [FBI, Justice Department, BATF, Canadian government, Stats Canada, Centrist non-partisan think tanks] are just as biased as you accuse Moore of being. Show us some objective sources."

I'm sincerely willing to believe Columbine is littered with inaccuracies. I need a little more than "because I said so" before I'm going to change my mind.

Which of my statements would you like to challenge?

You are aware, that among the credible ways to dismiss, discount, or refute an argument, is to actually provide counter evidence, eh? Cuz, it would seem to everyone you've never heard of that way before.

The least credible way is to simply spout "That's bluster" but not actually support it.

 

[tcsenter]

More specifically, would you care to comment on incessant assertions like these:

That link you gave was extremely baised. Moore is a lifetime member of NRA and I don't remember any part of that movie recommending more gun control.

Which offer Moore's NRA membership as some kind of proof that Moore is either "progun" or not "antigun" in light of Moore's confession?

--- begin Moore quote ---

"MM: I was a junior member when I was in the boy scouts when I was a
kid, but I became a lifetime member after the Columbine massacre
because my first thought after Columbine was to run against Charlton
Heston for the presidency of the NRA. You have to be a lifetime member
to be able to do that, so I had to pay $750 (about £450) to join. My
plan was to get 5 [million] Americans to join for the lowest basic
membership and vote for me so that I'd win and dismantle the
organisation. Unfortunately, I figured that's just too much work for
me so instead I made this movie. But I'm still a lifetime member,
until they excommunicate me... which is not far off, from what I
hear."

--- end Moore quote ---

Moore on his Lifetime NRA Membership

 

[tcsenter]

Or perhaps we could get you to challenge this:

Moore partly implicates 'over-reporting' of homicide by the media as indirectly fueling America's higher rates of violence. The logic goes; the media inflates fears of violence, people rush to gun shops and buy guns for protection, which in turn leads to more gun violence. Moore's support for this is that news reports of homicide increased 600% between 1990 ~ 1998 (citing Barry Glassner). Except national violent crime rates in all categories declined to 30 year-lows during same period. Hmmm, it shouldn't take a Ph.D. Criminologist to spot the logical fallacy here.

If 'over-reporting' of homicide by the media indirectly fuels gun violence, it would stand to reason that an incredible 600% increase in such reporting would correlate with something other than a significant decline in violent crime during the same period. Based on the facts as Moore admits them, one would more credibly infer the relationship to be completely inverse (more reporting = less violent crime).

What part of that do you wish to challenge? The widely known and widely publicized fact that all categories of violent crime declined to 30-year lows from 1994 to 2000? That Moore cites Barry Glassner's book, claiming to find that news reports of homicide increased 600% while homicide was falling?

Maybe Moore never said that the media inflates fears of gun violence, or that reports of homicide increased by 600%, maybe BFC was just a movie about the Magic of Walt Disney?

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Since you provide no documentation to back these claims, one assumes you expect us to take your word for it. Sorry, tcsenter, you'll have to do better than that. You have a record of making all sorts of ridiculous claims. When challenged with facts, however, you call names or run away rather than acknowledging your mistakes. That equals zero credibility.

You're confused. That would be you who has no record of credibility.

I have provided these sources in two dozen or better Moore threads. Even when I provide them, published independent or government sources, your response has been exactly the same; "Ha! That's a lot of bluster. Those sources [FBI, Justice Department, BATF, Canadian government, Stats Canada, Centrist non-partisan think tanks] are just as biased as you accuse Moore of being. Show us some objective sources."

I'm sincerely willing to believe Columbine is littered with inaccuracies. I need a little more than "because I said so" before I'm going to change my mind.

Which of my statements would you like to challenge?

You are aware, that among the credible ways to dismiss, discount, or refute an argument, is to actually provide counter evidence, eh? Cuz, it would seem to everyone you've never heard of that way before.

The least credible way is to simply spout "That's bluster" but not actually support it.

1. Re. your previous Moore threads, you are lying ... again. I never did anything of the sort.

2. Re. counter-evidence, I already did in other threads above. Further, you bear the burden of proof since you are the one claiming Moore's film is inaccurrate. No matter what you allege you provided in other threads, all you provided in this one was loud, unsubstantiated accusations.

3. If you would bother to reading other posts in the thread, you will find I already conceded that Alchemize and Tabb raised reasonable doubts about aspects of Columbine. They did this through intelligent discussion and actual documentation, a technique you may want to consider someday.

4. Re. credibility - No, it's still you who has none. In a much earlier thread, you stupidly blurted a monumental whopper, claiming Bush never suggested a connection between Iraq and 9/11. Obvious nonsense, and I called you on it, offering as evidence the letter from Bush to Congress explicitly making this connection. A person with integrity would have acknowledged his mistake and moved on. Instead, you turned it into a lie by sticking to your absurd claim, refusing to address it, and finally fleeing to OT, crying you would address it "in due time".

I reminded you of this when you popped back up in P&N several weeks ago. You still defended this absurd claim and said you would prove it as soon as you got home, that it was my error. Instead, of course, you disappeared yet again.

I might ignore this character flaw except for your joy in obnoxiously attacking others. That's wrong. Clean your own house first, or be prepared to document every single thing you say. Your words alone carry no credibilty when you refuse to admit to such an enormous "mistake".

 

[EXman]

why do people buy his BS?

he is so full of himself and he looks pretty full

 

[tcsenter]

. Re. credibility - No, it's still you who has none. In a much earlier thread, you stupidly blurted a monumental whopper, claiming Bush never suggested a connection between Iraq and 9/11. Obvious nonsense, and I called you on it, offering as evidence the letter from Bush to Congress explicitly making this connection.

lol! Always going back to that when you have nothing else and find yourself being squeezed, eh? Well, you keep doing that diversion thing, if you think it works for you.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

. Re. credibility - No, it's still you who has none. In a much earlier thread, you stupidly blurted a monumental whopper, claiming Bush never suggested a connection between Iraq and 9/11. Obvious nonsense, and I called you on it, offering as evidence the letter from Bush to Congress explicitly making this connection.

lol! Always going back to that when you have nothing else and find yourself being squeezed, eh? Well, you keep doing that diversion thing, if you think it works for you.

Thanks. You lied. You lied again. You refuse to accept responsibility. Therefore, you have no credibility. All it takes is the integrity to say, "I was wrong." You apparently don't have it. Your ego is too big.

(That's not surprising. That was the same thread where you pompously claimed to have the perfect, absolutely "answers all questions" explanation of why we invaded Iraq, complete with you highlighting "all". Indeed, I think your inflated ego became a popular topic in the thread. You were way over the top.)


You also ignored the other three points in my reply. Equally unsurprising, you don't handle facts well.

 

[tcsenter]

2. Re. counter-evidence, I already did in other threads above. Further, you bear the burden of proof since you are the one claiming Moore's film is inaccurrate. No matter what you allege you provided in other threads, all you provided in this one was loud, unsubstantiated accusations.

This is not a response. Its denial and dismissal, without any support.

3. If you would bother to reading other posts in the thread, you will find I already conceded that Alchemize and Tabb raised reasonable doubts about aspects of Columbine. They did this through intelligent discussion and actual documentation, a technique you may want to consider someday.

You have failed to specifically address a single point above. All you have done is say "That's bluster" and then rode-off into the sunset. Sorry, doesn't qualify.

4. Re. credibility - No, it's still you who has none. In a much earlier thread, you stupidly blurted a monumental whopper, claiming Bush never suggested a connection between Iraq and 9/11.

lol! Always going back to that when you have nothing else and find yourself being squeezed, eh? Well, you keep doing that diversion thing, if you think it works for you.

Sorry, doesn't qualify. Try Debate for Kindergarteners, last door on the right.

 

[Zephyr106]

No European country should ever be allowed to become a superpower ever again. They're too reckless, completely immoral, selfish people.

Those are big words you use there. But the Europeans are still better than you in every way.

Zephyr