Author Topic: Figured we needed another gun thread! (Read 1663 times)

Stringer · « **Reply #15 on:** March 30, 2003, 06:29:59 PM »

Beet1e,
In the interest of gathering all the information on the subject, are you going to comment on the information within Toad's post, or just about Toad posting in a baiting thread by you.....yep, somethings or people never change

. Plus, you are no stranger to wall of texts

Tronski,
Will it might be in the author's best interest to discredit Moore's fiction, I don't think it lessens the validity of his work.

Moore saying people booing the booers.....hehe, definately a legend in his own mind.

Fact is, Moore is no more in the documentary business than any of us are.

Plus, I can see Moore giving to the IRA. His M.O. is to challenge the establishment.

Stringer

Nash · « **Reply #16 on:** March 30, 2003, 06:33:21 PM »

I don't know why the movie was classified as a documentary. It certainly wasn't. When you go see a Michael Moore film you're expecting entertainment, not an education. If the exact same movie were made by anyone else, it would be ignored or worse, attacked for trying to pass itself off as a documentary. As far as entertainment goes, it had its moments. If ya want facts, go read a book.

Oh... when you (Beetle) said:

"TV entertainment was reproduced from Canada and from America. The Candadian version was tranquil. The American version depicted violence."

TV entertainment here in Canada isn't reproduced. It's the exact same thing, beamed in from the US. All the channels are the same as if you were watching TV from a living room in Alabama.... ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, FOX, MSNBC you name it. With only a couple of actual Canadian channels added. It's the local news he was talking about.

On a side note... I'd never heard Marylin Manson speak but my god... did he ever nail it when he said that line about "listening". Didn't even skip a beat when he said it. I was impressed by that.

Toad · « **Reply #17 on:** March 30, 2003, 06:33:25 PM »

Didn't figure you'd be interested in anything but your own preconceived ideas about the film.

You're the perfect Moore audience.

-tronski- · « **Reply #18 on:** March 30, 2003, 06:37:18 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Stringer
Tronski,
Will it might be in the author's best interest to discredit Moore's fiction, I don't think it lessens the validity of his work.

Moore saying people booing the booers.....hehe, definately a legend in his own mind.

Plus, I can see Moore giving to the IRA. His M.O. is to challenge the establishment.

Stringer

All valid points,

surely not even Moore could distinguish between different types of booing

giving to the IRA can't be excused for any reason.

Tronsky

Stringer · « **Reply #19 on:** March 30, 2003, 06:37:59 PM »

ROCK, CHALK, JAYHAWK.....GO KU!

Stringer

beet1e · « **Reply #20 on:** March 31, 2003, 01:56:00 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
Didn't figure you'd be interested in anything but your own preconceived ideas about the film.

ROFL!!![/b] Coming from someone who has not one, not two, not three, but four ready prepared walls-0-words about the subject, your above remark resembles a discussion on racial equality between Messrs. Kettle and Pot!

Stringer!!

Quote

In the interest of gathering all the information on the subject, are you going to comment on the information within Toad's post, or just about Toad posting in a baiting thread by you.....yep, somethings or people never change . Plus, you are no stranger to wall of texts

Awww, how touching to see you rallying to Mr. Toad's aid.

All jolly good ol' boys from Kansas sticking together, huh?

A baiting thread you say? Well I knew it would be perceived as such, hence my "blue touchpaper" remark at the end. But actually it's not. I saw a movie about a topic that has been debated here before, I made a few observations, and commented on some angles I'd missed before. Maybe it's an issue close to your heart, but for most of the world's population we might as well be having a discussion about ratchet screwdriver ownership.

I wouldn't feel the need to read and comment on an essay if I were about to watch One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, Silence of the Lambs, The Wizard of Oz or any other movie. Why should Bowling for Columbine be any different? I am privileged, within this free society of ours, to watch a movie (or half a movie), hold an opinion on it, and comment on it on this BBS without being compelled to read and comment on four walls-o-words.

As for walls-o-words, my most recent walls predate your somewhat recent registration on this BBS, so you are clearly hiding behind this new identity for reasons best known to yourself. Earlier this month in your "first" post, you proclaimed that henceforth you would be communicating via "emoticans" (sic). You were true to your word for a while, but now I see that slowly but surely, you too are making the transition from "emoticans" to walls. Must be a Kansas thing. LOL!

And now, Part 1 of my Oscar award winning entertainment is downloaded and ready for my viewing enjoyment. I shall be gone for some time, so...

Toodle-Pip!

Toad · « **Reply #21 on:** March 31, 2003, 06:15:51 AM »

Hey, I went to see the movie a long time ago. Before anyone had a chance to document Moore's dishonesty Seems I've demonstrated my open-mindedness.

You on the other hand were posting how impressive Moore's argument is without even seeing the whole movie. Further, the dishonesty has been evaluated and documented now.

So basically, without even seeing the whole movie and ignoring the evidence that contradicts his major points... you're here touting it.

As for the wall of text, I suppose I could have just posted a link. But since you won't read a well documented article that is contrary to you opinion when it's placed in front of you, I seriously doubt you'd have followed the link either.

Let's see... I watched the movie and read the document and made up my mind.

You haven't even watched the movie and haven't read the document and made up your mind.

Who's the open minded one here?

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #22 on:** March 31, 2003, 06:19:41 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by -tronski-

Moore has said alot of the booeing was poeple booeing the booers...!?!

Tronsky

I bet the lying arrogant bastard would say something like that after he made an bellybutton of himself and got booed off the stage..

beet1e · « **Reply #23 on:** March 31, 2003, 06:34:33 AM »

Mr. Toad, I don't agree. We both have our views, and would have those views with or without Moore's movie. Moore himself formed his own views the same way we did - by looking at what's going on in America. Not once did I make any reference to "how impressive Moore's argument is", so I don't know where that came from.

The vast majority of the movie seems to be interviews - with gun owners, gun victims, and bereaved friends and relatives of gunshot victims. He doesn't need to possess powers of impressive argument. The movie speaks for itself. By the way, I watched Part 1 this morning. I really liked that cartoon about the history of America.

That did kind of make sense in a tongue in cheek way!

"From my cold dead hands" - my arse. Heston should have stuck to chariot driving. He was good at that, and there were no guns around.

Toad · « **Reply #24 on:** March 31, 2003, 06:41:20 AM »

Well, I went when it first came out. And I went to see if the guy had anything worthwhile to say; I didn't go to throw popcorn at the screen because I disagreed.

He did raise one or two good points.. .but he had no answers either. And when he could provide no answers, the film wanders away and loses itself and its honesty.

As for your evaluation,

Quote

The vast majority of the movie seems to be interviews - with gun owners, gun victims, and bereaved friends and relatives of gunshot victims. He doesn't need to possess powers of impressive argument. The movie speaks for itself.

pretty much sums it up.

The problem with that is shown in the document I posted for you that you've decided, in your open-mindedness, not to read.

He's rigged the film. The evidence is there. No movie speaks for itself. It's speaks primarily for it's editor, as the document shows.

But, hey... don't read the debunking and keep telling my you're open minded. I love that sort of thing!

Stringer · « **Reply #25 on:** March 31, 2003, 07:11:53 AM »

Beet1e,
Why the aggressive stance?

I just asked a question, and pointed out an obvious observation.

I have a cunning plan

Toodle Pip!

beet1e · « **Reply #26 on:** March 31, 2003, 07:15:54 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Mr. Toad
But, hey... don't read the debunking and keep telling my you're open minded. I love that sort of thing!

Mr. Toad, do you ever go to a movie without reading some sort of synopsis about it, like a Playbill? I don't go to a movie theatre that often, but whenever I have, I doubt that anyone in the audience would have read a synopsis/brief/wall-o-words. The parts I focussed on were the cartoon section/history of America, the one guy who did make a very good point that I quoted in my initial post, and the interviews.

Moore's film did illustrate the paranoia of the American public, and selected various themes. One was the African killer bees, another was Y2K. Now I was heavily involved in converting legacy computer systems to be Y2K compliant. It was work that had to be done, but we did it in a controlled manner the same as any other job. So I was amazed at some of the stories going around prior to the event. The news media had a field day, scaring people with stories suggesting that on 01/01/2000, TV sets would not work, cars would not start, and even electric kettles would not work. All news media hype, but the American public bought it, and had visions of Armageddon. One guy even constructed a shelter in upstate NY from the roofs of 45 yellow school buses! So this was another angle that made me think, and took place long before Moore's movie, so don't blame him!

Did I take precautions against Y2K Armageddon? I did not. I was burned out on the whole Y2K thing, so I looked for news bulletins coming from New Zealand where it was already 2000, saw nothing interesting, and went to bed at 11:30pm in disgust at the whole debacle.

If the NRA will make a movie in which it makes its case, I'll be interested to watch that too.

Toad · « **Reply #27 on:** March 31, 2003, 07:24:54 AM »

Yeah, I went to Bowling for Columbing without reading a synopsis for example.

OTOH, I also love to read a book and then go to a movie based upon that book. Gettysburg, for example. I find if I have detailed knowledge of the subject, I usually enjoy the movie more.

However, despite your reluctance to read a "wall of words" (I am truly sorry. I had no idea that a carefully constructed, detailed analysis of Mr. Moore's dishonesty would pose such a formidable barrier to your reading skills.

) I hope you enjoyed the movie

But to pretend you're taking the entire experience in an open-minded way is, well, entertaining to say the least.

Questions about the "documentary" nature of Mr. Moore's work that won an Oscar as a "documentary" generated the recent interest in the factual aspects of his opus. It turns out it is far from a documentary. Polemic may be more apt.

So, watch the movie. Heck, watch it twice.

Don't read the examination of Moore's dishonesty.

All fine by me.

But please don't pretend you've been open-minded about it.

Toad · « **Reply #28 on:** March 31, 2003, 07:30:49 AM »

Oh, btw... I didn't have "four readily prepared walls of text".

I merely cut and pasted this debunking of Moore into four parts because of the post size limitation on the HTC boards.

And, I had read the posted article some time before you ever decided we all needed another gun thread.

So, as I said, I merely put the information in front of you thinking you'd find it harder to ignore than a link.

Obviously, I was wrong about that.

lazs2 · « **Reply #29 on:** March 31, 2003, 08:19:25 AM »

beetle i think you are missing the main point... the film claims to be a documentary... it claims a lot of things it says are facts and then it gets caught in the most outrageous lies imaginable... I am not reading a movie critique... It is a debunking of a huge lie.

your other point seems to be that Americans are stupid because they.... what? Arm themselves after 911? You, and moore seem to feel that they/we all of a sudden realized that the world was a very bad place because of terrorists and are arming ouselves against the perpetuators of 911...

you are both half right... huge highly publicized violent acts against civilians do remind us of what a violent place the world is. Gun sales go up when a strangler is on the loose or a serial killer... it is human nature to react only in crisis. sooo...

I am sure gun sales went up after 911. I am also sure that whatever percent they went up tho.... it was not the same as whatever moore said it was... I am certain that anything out of moores mout that is touted as a statistic or fact is.... a total bald faced lie.

I ask you.... If you were interested in say.. VW beetles and... a documentary was made that had every single fact wrong about the car... That had an obvious anti beetle slant and made up facts to push that slant.... what would you think of that "documentary"? why would you bother to watch other documentaries by that "film maker"?
lazs