Audio Asylum Thread Printer

Get a view of an entire thread on one page

FAQ / News / Events

Films/DVD Asylum

Arguing about Moore

208.59.199.233

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Thread: Display All Email ] [ Films/DVD Asylum ]

Troy

In Reply to: the most annoying, self-important, manipulative, F*%K'd in the head posted by Jon L on May 22, 2004 at 18:20:29:

I argued with someone about Moore on another BB when Columbine came out on DVD. I won't do it again because it's not going to change anyone's mind, but I will try and explain to others, like Bambi why you feel this way.
This other guy directed me to a website (I wish I still had the URL, but I don't) that explained dozens of continuity discrepancies in BFC that show that Heston didn't actually make that speech in Denver right after the shootings and several other things. Facts is facts, Heston didn't change his tie in mid speech, did he?
Now, here's the difference. People like the guy that argued with me for days on end and JonL want to just throw the baby out with the bathwater. Yeah, Moore may have used a few "artistic License" moments in BFC, but, the facts remain solid through 90% of the film. Jon thinks that if 10% of the film is manipulated, then 100% must be and that just isn't the case. The overall "big picture" content of BFC was right on the mark.
Can't wait to see F911.

Follow Ups:

Well, as an old law professor used to tell us, "if it's 99% correct, then it's 100% incorrect...... - Chris Garrett 20:30:28 05/24/04 (0)
however, I should probably see it just to see what all of the fuss is about. Both actually.
Chris
Wouldn't a solution of 10% anti-freeze and 90% Kool-aid be bad for you? - clbeanz 12:32:39 05/24/04 (12)
Or do you just throw away 10% of it?And gulp down the rest.;^)
- Sure, but . . . - Troy 14:31:21 05/24/04 (11)
  . . . that's not applicable in this context, wouldn't you say?
  Look, even if you take all the liberties that website said he took and cut them out of the movie, you're still left with a lot of irrefutable facts. You can't deny it if you saw the movie.
  - Not a good statement at all - Victor Khomenko 15:43:31 05/24/04 (10)
    If one were to acknowledge that some lies were present in the "documentary" work, that would put the WHOLE work under question, as there would not be any indication of which portion were facts and which lies.
    There is no such thing as 90% truth. If you already admitted he lied, then he is a liar... that is simple.
    - It's all about context, Vic - Troy 20:59:13 05/24/04 (9)
      There is no such thing as 90% truth. If you already admitted he lied, then he is a liar... that is simple.
      Yes, I understand this line of thinking. But it's wrong. There were hundreds of points made in the film, only a few were questionable. It's like saying if a person lies once, everything out of his mouth is a lie. Period. I'm afraid it's just not like that.
      The world just isn't that black and white. It's a lot more grey than that.
      Besides, I don't see a lot of it as outright lies. Some liberties were taken in the editing and there were some factual innaccuracies, many of which are only slightly off.
      I see this as more of a few Moore haters with their own agendas latching onto a few shreds in an attempt to discredit the entire message of the film.
      Did you see BfC, Vic?
      - The best lies always contain a grain of truth (mt) - Rod M 06:42:46 05/25/04 (0)
        
        In Reply to: It's all about context, Vic posted by Troy on May 24, 2004 at 20:59:13:
        
        .
      - Re: It's all about context, Vic - Victor Khomenko 06:15:10 05/25/04 (7)
        
        In Reply to: It's all about context, Vic posted by Troy on May 24, 2004 at 20:59:13:
        
        No, I didn't see BfC, as I am not interested in listening to another presentation of anti-gun position... I spent tremendous amount of time in my life studying the subject and I know where I stand.
        However, more importantly, I would not waste my time on work of a bitter spiteful individual full of hatred - I have better things in life.
        
        Fine, but . . . - Troy 07:40:16 05/25/04 (6)
        
        In Reply to: Re: It's all about context, Vic posted by Victor Khomenko on May 25, 2004 at 06:15:10:
        
        . . . . that means that you are not in a position to make a judgement on the content of the film. Your comment "bitter spiteful individual full of hatred" is WAY off the mark.
        You should have no opinion about it because you haven't seen it.
        Why do so many people choose to make judgements about Moore's movies without seeing them?
        
        You are deaf... I suspect... - Victor Khomenko 07:54:07 05/25/04 (5)
        
        In Reply to: Fine, but . . . posted by Troy on May 25, 2004 at 07:40:16:
        
        Please write then this message down - I have not expressed my opinion on that film - do you finally get it?
        Regarding the content - this is different story. Much has been written on it, so one can be familiar with it.
        But that is not important... if you don't see Moore as spiteful and full of hatred, that is your right - I have no problem with it. Many would disagree with you on this one... but what does this have to do with movies?
        It certainly looks like you have something stuck somewhere, as your last sentence is completely without any basis, as far as I can see.
        I haven't done that, and have no intention of doing it, but one could certainly ask the question of the type: "The quoted source provided clear evidence of fact manipulation on part of Moore that is pure misrepresentation and lies - what is your response regarding that particular episode?"
        See, no general comments, just a detailed analysis of his lies would suffice. Whether you like or don't his film is your problem, if you can'f address his lies that is another... AND FACTUAL.
        Someone mentioned the changing tie episode... if you want to take just this small one and defend it - go ahead, if not - I see no reason to change my opinion on Moore.
        
        Re: Is this not tiring Victor? - patrickU 10:31:20 05/25/04 (2)
        
        In Reply to: You are deaf... I suspect... posted by Victor Khomenko on May 25, 2004 at 07:54:07:
        
        I need some strenght....I must resource maself....
        
        Exactly... after making ten circles I feel like changing the game. - Victor Khomenko 10:34:40 05/25/04 (1)
        
        In Reply to: Re: Is this not tiring Victor? posted by patrickU on May 25, 2004 at 10:31:20:
        
        Target shooting maybe. In true spirit of Moore's film discussion.
        
        Re: Ha ha.....nt - patrickU 10:52:22 05/25/04 (0)
        
        In Reply to: Exactly... after making ten circles I feel like changing the game. posted by Victor Khomenko on May 25, 2004 at 10:34:40:
        
        n t
        
        Why does it always degenerate to name calling with you? - Troy 09:11:06 05/25/04 (1)
        
        In Reply to: You are deaf... I suspect... posted by Victor Khomenko on May 25, 2004 at 07:54:07:
        
        Regarding the content - this is different story. Much has been written on it, so one can be familiar with it.
        No. If you want to comment on the content of a movie, you have to see that content and make the judgement on your own. You cannot rely of the judgements of very negatively biased individuals that write slanderous articles about it.
        But that is not important... if you don't see Moore as spiteful and full of hatred, that is your right - I have no problem with it. Many would disagree with you on this one... but what does this have to do with movies?
        It has to do with the fact that you're making judgements of the film maker without seeing his film.
        It certainly looks like you have something stuck somewhere, as your last sentence is completely without any basis, as far as I can see.
        Hardly. It seems that the people that choose to argue against Moore and his films are the ones that HAVEN'T SEEN them!
        one could certainly ask the question of the type: "The quoted source provided clear evidence of fact manipulation on part of Moore that is pure misrepresentation and lies - what is your response regarding that particular episode?"
        Someone mentioned the changing tie episode... if you want to take just this small one and defend it - go ahead, if not - I see no reason to change my opinion on Moore.
        I am not defending it. It is an isolated incident that really has no bearing on the the other factual content of the film.
        Why is it OK for Hardy and Kopel to use the same techniques in their articles about the film, but it's not OK for Moore to use them?
        
        OK, so you ARE deaf... consider this a name. - Victor Khomenko 09:24:56 05/25/04 (0)
        
        In Reply to: Why does it always degenerate to name calling with you? posted by Troy on May 25, 2004 at 09:11:06:
        
        It beats me sometimes how one could be simply repeating a lie or a missguided statement without paying any attention to the other side.
        So - I guess you would agree I have not made comments on the film. Maybe not.

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

Signature Sound

[ Signature Sound Lounge ]

You can not post to an archived thread.