Author Topic: Help revoke Bowling for Columbine's Oscar (Read 5857 times)

Creamo · « **Reply #90 on:** April 30, 2003, 11:54:07 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lord dolf vader
god bless michael moore.

great movie.

was a shame seeing heston disgraced retreating from civil conversation. i wonder how much he got paid to torture thos folks.

p.s. im a gun lover and nra cirtified range instructor but wont join the nra specificaly for stunts like that. moors right depoliticise the nra. loose moses.

Minus, this account hacking must stop.

If it's for real, (HTC, check IP's) please Toad, acknowledge LTV, before he finally jumps up and down and says "Looky at me!" and adding more completely out of context , diptard, foolish reply's.

midnight Target · « **Reply #91 on:** April 30, 2003, 11:56:10 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Mini D
I'm sorry... is that movie being used as a political tool these days MT? As much as you keep trying to say it is the same thing... I have to disagree.

Guns? Yes... that is what the movie (BFC) is about. Gun ownership. People aren't upset because its about guns, people are upset because it misrepresents them and their organization in more than one instance.

Tell me once again what organization that disney movie was targetting?

MiniD

So... "Political tool usage" is the key? It (BFC) seems to be a political tool for both sides in this debate. I thought the issue was innacurate depictions of actual events? Thats what the revoker's websites are touting. "This isn't a legal documentary!" Paaaleees! Accuracy isn't the issue, its guns.

Mini D · « **Reply #92 on:** April 30, 2003, 12:04:43 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by midnight Target
So... "Political tool usage" is the key? It (BFC) seems to be a political tool for both sides in this debate. I thought the issue was innacurate depictions of actual events? Thats what the revoker's websites are touting. "This isn't a legal documentary!" Paaaleees! Accuracy isn't the issue, its guns.

MT, stop being obtuse.

The movie is being used as a political tool that is misrepresenting the organization it is targetting. It is not part of an "agenda" to respond to those inaccuracies. It is a necessity. Lies left alone turn into truths.

And, once again, THE MOVIE IS ABOUT GUNS! jeez... QUIT ****ING SAYING THAT THIS WHOLE THING IS ABOUT GUNS! NO ****ING **** ITS ABOUT GUNS!

This particular incident is what happens when one side lies about the other... and how the other side responds to it.

One side was inaccurate with their facts. The other side is calling them on it. This is the most notable way to do it. If someone gets an award for something that is by definition "fact based", then those being targetted are oblidged to point out that its not fact based and thus not elegible for the award/certification.

MiniD

Dowding · « **Reply #93 on:** April 30, 2003, 12:05:54 PM »

A documentary is based on solid fact in my eye. I haven't seen the film, but it sounds like it isn't. Therefore, it isn't a documentary.

Besides, Moore is an IRA supporting f***wit and I wouldn't piss on his rotund bellybutton if it was on fire.

So there.

Toad · « **Reply #94 on:** April 30, 2003, 12:15:38 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Dowding
Besides, Moore is an IRA supporting f***wit and I wouldn't piss on his rotund bellybutton if it was on fire.

Yes, the fat would most certainly be in the fire then!

I seriously doubt any amount of pissing would put out a conflagration of that magnitude!

Creamo, did he say something?

midnight Target · « **Reply #95 on:** April 30, 2003, 12:20:21 PM »

I made Mini-D yell...

from http://www.revoketheoscar.com/

Quote

What are arguments which WILL fly in my letter to the Academy?

1. This is not a documentary--it's fiction. Rule 12.1 of the Academy Awards competition defines what is entitled to compete in the documentary class, and it begins: "An eligible documentary film is defined as a theatrically released non-fiction motion picture. . . ." This is the core rule which separates the documentary competition from all other competitions.

2. The documentary class is set aside so that creators of nonfiction, of education rather than entertainment, would not be competing against entertainment and fiction. To award the Oscar to a film which employs lots of fiction does an injustice to the other competitors in the class. They played by the rules and submitted creations which stuck to the facts.

3. Maybe the Academy found Bowling entertaining -- but that's why they have a separate class for documentaries. A real documentary on battlefield surgery shouldn't have to compete against "MASH;" a real one on the Holocaust shouldn't compete against "Schindler's List."

What are arguments which WON'T fly in my letter to the Academy?

1. Moore's politics. The Academy likes to believe it has no politics, and simply awards its fellow artists for their art. In practice, its politics are largely the same as Moore's. A person might as well complain to NewsMax that one of its writers is conservative. The reader will just laugh and discard it.

2. Ditto for firearms, if you're a gunny.

3. Probably the same for arguments about bias and unfairness. The Academy accepts that a documentary can be biased. What a documentary cannot be, by definition, is fictional or untrue. A writer can give one side of the truth, so long as that one side is true.

4. It goes without saying, be polite.

So the issue is accuracy and not guns? Then why not attack Olympia? or The Living Desert?

Mini D · « **Reply #96 on:** April 30, 2003, 12:30:26 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by midnight Target
I made Mini-D yell...
So the issue is accuracy and not guns? Then why not attack Olympia? or The Living Desert?

MT, you are joining beet1e in dip**** of the century status.

Read what you quoted again very carefully. Very carefully, not in a manner to see only what you want to see. I'm not going to explain the text you yourself quoted and are either being too ignorant or assenine to decipher yourself.

MiniD

midnight Target · « **Reply #97 on:** April 30, 2003, 12:48:49 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Mini D
MT, you are joining beet1e in dip**** of the century status.

Read what you quoted again very carefully. Very carefully, not in a manner to see only what you want to see. I'm not going to explain the text you yourself quoted and are either being too ignorant or assenine to decipher yourself.

MiniD

And you are approaching Hortlundesque condescension. Nice use of **** BTW.

So if the issue is the accuracy of the items in the film, as stated ("its fiction") then lets address them. It is obvious to me however, that very little would be made of these inaccuracies if the film had been about boating deaths or dangerous toys for 3 year olds.

(don't get yer panties in a wad... its only pixels on a screen)

Mini D · « **Reply #98 on:** April 30, 2003, 12:57:31 PM »

MT.. the issue is accuracy in this film. The people being misportrayed are going to have the major beef with it. When they present to the Academy, they can only present based on accuracy of the movie because the acadamy is not concerned with anything else.

Its that simple. Yet you try to confuse the issue at every opportunity.

The movie is about guns. It is about an attack on the NRA. Those being attacked are responding. Its that simple.

The academy itself does not care about the issues in the movie, but they should care if it is factual or not. Afterall, they have, in effect, certified it.

Now stop being a beet1e wannabe and do a little thinking MT. Sometimes your desire to stir **** causes the splashback to cloud your vision. Oh.. lookie.. another clever use for ****.

MiniD

funkedup · « **Reply #99 on:** April 30, 2003, 01:09:23 PM »

Quote

The movie is about guns. It is about an attack on the NRA. Those being attacked are responding. Its that simple.

The academy itself does not care about the issues in the movie, but they should care if it is factual or not. Afterall, they have, in effect, certified it.

Nuff said.

Stringer · « **Reply #100 on:** April 30, 2003, 01:20:57 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by beet1e
I'm not really making a good point, but that's because I don't know what I'm arguing against. [/color][/size]

THIS is the most FACTUAL statement in this thread, possibly the most factual statement ever, on this BBS.

Pongo · « **Reply #101 on:** April 30, 2003, 01:20:57 PM »

the reason I havnt seen the movie yet is I really cant stand that guy..
lol

beet1e · « **Reply #102 on:** April 30, 2003, 01:24:44 PM »

I've been wondering what all this **** business is about. And I think I've made a discovery. This BBS has an inbuilt truth filter.

MiniDick tried to call me a dipshit. But the board edited the statement to dip**** because the statement is false.

So then I tried my own tests

beet1e is a dip**** ???
MiniDick is full of shit.

Yup, that would explain it.

________________
The NRA/Gun Lobby is in no way threatened by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, it's just plain redikulolous.

AKIron · « **Reply #103 on:** April 30, 2003, 01:48:18 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by beet1e
I've been wondering what all this **** business is about. And I think I've made a discovery. This BBS has an inbuilt truth filter.

Unfortunately, blitz proves your hypothesis wrong every time he posts.

midnight Target · « **Reply #104 on:** April 30, 2003, 03:42:47 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Mini D

The movie is about guns. It is about an attack on the NRA. Those being attacked are responding. Its that simple.

Now stop being a beet1e wannabe and do a little thinking MT. Sometimes your desire to stir **** causes the splashback to cloud your vision. Oh.. lookie.. another clever use for ****.

MiniD

Actually the movie is about violence, not guns.

And I have no desire to be a beet1e. I consider the need to post walls of text as the refuge of the witless. I try to make my point without boring you to death.