Author Topic: Saw moors film (Read 5057 times)

Nash · « **Reply #45 on:** June 26, 2004, 07:56:59 PM »

Oh... his assertions are a horrible example. I mean, his article is the paper version of a Moore film. That's fine, but not when you use the same tactics in an article that is supposed to point out how bad these tactics appearently are.

He's just an incredibly effective advocate for his positions. Barely any of which I agree with.

ra · « **Reply #46 on:** June 26, 2004, 08:08:36 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nash
Oh... his assertions are a horrible example. I mean, his article is the paper version of a Moore film. That's fine, but not when you use the same tactics in an article that is supposed to point out how bad these tactics appearently are.

He's just an incredibly effective advocate for his positions. Barely any of which I agree with.

What do you disagree with in the Hitchens article?

Nash · « **Reply #47 on:** June 26, 2004, 08:22:17 PM »

Well, I said I disagree with his positions... which go back quite a ways before this particular article.

I won't say I disagree with anything F9/11-related in the article, because I haven't seen the show.

But, stylistically.... Hitchins starts the article by saying Moore's film is dishonest. Then proceeds to put on a journalistic dog and pony show repleat with a point by point dissection which winds up creating an air of dishonesty but never actually delivers its case in any factual way.

And isn't that what this article was attacking in the first place?

The only difference between this article and a Moore film is the budget.

midnight Target · « **Reply #48 on:** June 26, 2004, 09:11:23 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nash
Well, I said I disagree with his positions... which go back quite a ways before this particular article.

I won't say I disagree with anything F9/11-related in the article, because I haven't seen the show.

But, stylistically.... Hitchins starts the article by saying Moore's film is dishonest. Then proceeds to put on a journalistic dog and pony show repleat with a point by point dissection which winds up creating an air of dishonesty but never actually delivers its case in any factual way.

And isn't that what this article was attacking in the first place?

The only difference between this article and a Moore film is the budget.

Exactly my feelings on the article only stated much-more-way-a-lot-betterer.

(I like this Hard Lemonade!)

capt. apathy · « **Reply #49 on:** June 26, 2004, 09:20:52 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
The National Enquirer gets away with it by having two sources, and then quoting the sources, saying "Sources reiterate that Bush did have contact with alien advisors from Rigel 3 during the Chinese capture of a RC-3 Orion reconnaissance aircraft"

the National Enquirer gets put down quite a bit. But you gotta admit, their illustrations of UFO's are pretty much on the money.

DiabloTX · « **Reply #50 on:** June 26, 2004, 09:28:38 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nash
But, stylistically.... Hitchins starts the article by saying Moore's film is dishonest. Then proceeds to put on a journalistic dog and pony show repleat with a point by point dissection which winds up creating an air of dishonesty but never actually delivers its case in any factual way.

You can say the same exact thing about Moore's film as well.

Nash · « **Reply #51 on:** June 26, 2004, 09:30:04 PM »

which I did. a couple of times.

DiabloTX · « **Reply #52 on:** June 26, 2004, 09:35:09 PM »

Didn't follow you 100% on your posts but I see it now...sorta.

Steve · « **Reply #53 on:** June 26, 2004, 09:45:48 PM »

Quote

I'm guessing you didn't read that article too closely. No direct evidence of a lie in the movie at all. Keep trying though.

you guessed wrong, piss off.

Nash · « **Reply #54 on:** June 26, 2004, 09:48:24 PM »

Woohoo the BBS reply version of the article version of the film.

Unless you care to back that up, Steve.

Steve · « **Reply #55 on:** June 26, 2004, 09:50:56 PM »

Back what up? Do you want to call me and read the article together to prove I read it? you tire me... if you can't see where Moore misrepresented things you are beyond normal help and I am not interested in expending a significant amount of energy in order to save you from your ignorance.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #56 on:** June 26, 2004, 09:52:56 PM »

As if you really care Nash..

For example there was a very detailed site examining the lies and other dishonesty in Bowling for Columbine and nobody amongst the Morre supporters cared even when it was all pointed out...

You either like the guy, his politics and his work or you dont, it seems to simply come down to that...

Nash · « **Reply #57 on:** June 26, 2004, 09:54:30 PM »

it's simple, dude....

"no evidence of a lie", said MT.

"guess again" say you.

So, just show one example.

Or are you just sayin' watermelon to say it?

Nash · « **Reply #58 on:** June 26, 2004, 09:58:16 PM »

lol Grun... in your stupifyingly small two dimensional world your post might make some sense. I don't inhabit that world, and am only somewhat aware of its people's customs. I'd need a translator to reply to your post. Nothing is as "simple" as you'd like to frame it.

Steve · « **Reply #59 on:** June 26, 2004, 09:58:20 PM »

Listen, I'll give you a playbook since you are having trouble following along. Let me go over it step by step.. then I'm done with you.

MT guessed I didn't read the article. I told him to guess again.

Get it? If you don't it's too damned bad because I said I wasn't going to save you from your ignorance and I meant it.