Recommended Posts
Quotepeacefuljeffrey, in his rather poorly executed defense, is implying that the Titan missile on display outside of the Littleton plant was not produced there, nor do they produce anything of the kind.
Fact 1: Titan IV rockets are used to launch satellites.
Fact 2: Titan IV rockets are produced at the Littleton Lockheed plant.
Show me how Fact 1 negates Fact 2.
Would you now like to argue semantics because I (and Jeffrey, and Bill, and you) called it a missile, which implies that it is a weapon?
_Pm
Should I stop waiting for you to address the two or three other indictments of Moore's veracity that I offered?
I don't think it was a poor execution to point out that in order to portray Charlton Heston (and the NRA) as callous and indifferent to Littleton's suffering, Moore had to splice disparate parts of his several speeches into what seems to be one connected utterance -- right down to the fact that Heston is seen to be wearing two different suits in two shots that are separated by the camera panning the audience, with applause covering the gap.
I don't think it was a poor execution to point out that Moore staged the scene where he walks out of the bank as though he had been given a rifle inside. The fact remains that the bank does not stock the rifles, nor does it give them away. The purchaser of the CD has to pass all legally required background checks (Moore makes light of this) and has to pick up the rifle he chooses at an altogether different location.
I can't figure out why you left these very pithy points out of your quote from me. Had no rebuttal to them, I guess?
-
-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"
kallend 2,150
QuoteMy point was to demonstrate how Moore utterly misrepresented reality in order to bias his audience toward believing things that are simply untrue.
You should re-read the 2003 State of the Union speech to see a text-book perfect example of how to do this.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
QuoteShould I stop waiting for you to address the two or three other indictments of Moore's veracity that I offered?
Yes, you should stop waiting. Did you even READ my post here?
http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1085775#1085775
I said that the Moore-debunking site(s) you were looking at had some valid points. Have you read the page on Moore's web site where he replies to those debunking claims made on the anti-Moore web sites (which you have merely parroted)? I'm still wondering if you've even seen the film.
No, I guess you didn't really read that post, or Moore's reply, or haven't seen his movie because you seem to be listening to no one but yourself and whatever those anti-Moore web sites tell you.
As far as your poorly executed defenses are concerned, I think they still are--perhaps you should try clicking that link that says "In reply to" so that you can see the thread of posts that led to my "Fact 1 - Fact 2" post.
"Logic, it's not just for Vulcans anymore!" -AndyMan
_Pm
Edited to clarify where Moore's reply to "wackoattackos" appears (his own web site).
__
"Scared of love, love and aeroplanes...falling out, I said takes no brains." -- Andy Partridge (XTC)
"Scared of love, love and aeroplanes...falling out, I said takes no brains." -- Andy Partridge (XTC)
AndyMan 7
Quote
Demonstrating how Moore had to splice together arbitrary parts of several speeches in order to change the context of the speaker's points is not "hitting any of them"? Nor is the fact that Moore gives the impression of a false timeline when he depicts Heston giving various speeches proof of his deception? After all, Moore very clearly implies that Heston showed up in Littleton almost immediately after the shooting to tell the mayor of Denver to go to hell, and to pry his rifle from his cold dead hands. But we know that the "cold dead hands" speech was given in North Carolina, not Colorado, and not the next week but 9 months later. Watch the film: is that the impression that the lying sack of shit Moore works toward giving?
I had thought this might be a valid point. I went to my local Blockbuster and grabbed a copy. The scene is NOT as you described. There's a shot of Heston saying "Over my cold dead hands", then a shot of the crowd, then a 10 second pan of a billboard announcing the meeting in Columbine. Zoom in on Hestons face on the billboard. Switch to coverage of the meeting.
Not only was Heston wearing a different shirt and tie, he was clearly on a different stage, with a different podium, with a different backdrop, and wildly different lighting. The separation between the two clips of Heston is distinct, and I can't imagine how someone would walk away thinking it was the same convention.
Not only is the scene radically different, the content is radically different, and its clearly separated by the use of the sign AND voiceover to differentiate the two.
I studied film in college, and I've even made a handful of crappy documentaries. The shot of Heston doing his "cold dead hands" speech is clearly an establishing shot introducing the next segment. I've done similar things myself.
It was obvious to me, it was obvious to my wife. I'm sure if my goldfish Bubbles had been paying attention, it would have been obvious to him, too.
Again I've got to ask the question: Have you seen the movie?
Look, Michael Moore is presenting his story. He's very upfront and honest about that. He doesn't claim to know any kind of abstract truth, nor does he claim to know every single facet of what happened at Columbine. He explains his theories and uses film to illustrate them. He's lucky that he's got the kind of soapbox available to him that he can present his opinions in a way that people will hear them.
My frustration is that instead of critiquing his thoughts, everyone seems to rally around critiques that aren't even valid. Instead of arguing his thoughts, you're degrading the man. That's ad hominem, and key to my personal baloney detection.
Michael Moore is an artist, and he's entitled to artistic license. If you're denying his right to use an establishing shot of "cold dead hands", then you're denying artistic license. That's ludicrous. If I was doing a documentary and If I had a shot like that, I'd use it too. It'd be stupid not to. I'd be sure to separate the establishing shot from the convention with a solid break, just like Moore did.
QuoteDemonstrating how Moore UTTERLY LIED about the way in which one acquires a rifle from the bank that gives them away for purchasing a certificate of deposit is not "hitting any of them"? How is the exposure of an outright LIE not a good criticism of Bowling for Columbine??
Not only is Moore lying, apparently the Chicago Sun Times is lying too. I guess the bank must be lying, because that's what their advertisement says, too. There's guns hanging on the wall in the bank.
Here's what the teller in the bank says. I'm quoting her directly: "You do the CD, we'll hand you a gun. We have a whole brochure here that you can look at. Once we do the background check and everything, it's yours to go... We have a vault, which at all times we keep at least 500 firearms..
MM: "500 of these, you have in your vault?"
Bank teller: "500, in our vault."
Bank teller: "we have to do a background check".
MM: "at the bank here?"
Bank teller: "At the bank, which we are a licensed firewarm dealer.
MM: "You're a bank, and a firearm dealer?:
Bank teller: "yes."
MM then goes forward to fill out the forms for the background check.
A cut later, another bank employee is handing him the gun.
Obviously something was cut out. Here's where MM explains what was cut: http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/wackoattacko/. I'll quote it, just so don't have to go read that awful man's website: "After you see me filling out the required federal forms ("How do you spell Caucasian?") – which I am filling out here for the first time – the bank manager faxed it to the bank's main office for them to do the background check. The bank is a licensed federal arms dealer and thus can have guns on the premises and do the instant background checks (the ATF's Federal Firearms database—which includes all federally approved gun dealers—lists North Country Bank with Federal Firearms License #4-38-153-01-5C-39922)."
Within 10 minutes of filling out the forms - in the bank, he walks out of the bank with the gun. One visit. The only thing prearranged was that he'd called the bank in advance asking for permission to bring cameras.
So... is the bank teller lying, too?
You CAN just walk into that bank, open a CD, fill out federal forms, and 10 minutes later walk out with a shiny new rifle - just as Michael Moore did, on his film. The only steps they didn't show was faxing the forms and waiting 10 minutes for the reply. They did show filling out the forms.
The Chicago Sun Times said you can get the gun onsite. The Bank ads said you get the gun onsite. Michael Moore said you even get the gun onsite, and the bank teller even says that they've got at least 500 guns available ONSITE JUST FOR THAT VERY REASON. The bank is a registered firearm dealer.
Are they all lying? Personally, I don't think so. I think that's a pretty compelling list of evidence.
If you're going to criticise the movie, use VALID POINTS. Moore didn't lie about the bank. He did in fact walk in, and 15 minutes later walked out with a rifle.
QuoteHow fuckin' confused are you?!
Not very peaceful, Jeffrey.
_Am
__
You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.
You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.
kallend 2,150
QuoteNot only was Heston wearing a different shirt and tie, he was clearly on a different stage, with a different podium, with a different backdrop, and wildly different lighting. The separation between the two clips of Heston is distinct, and I can't imagine how someone would walk away thinking it was the same convention.
I can imagine how it would happen. If you wanted to think that and wanted to make a point and chose to force fit the facts to your opinion, you could easily think that. It's all explained in Alice in Wonderland.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
My point was to demonstrate how Moore utterly misrepresented reality in order to bias his audience toward believing things that are simply untrue.
Demonstrating how Moore had to splice together arbitrary parts of several speeches in order to change the context of the speaker's points is not "hitting any of them"? Nor is the fact that Moore gives the impression of a false timeline when he depicts Heston giving various speeches proof of his deception? After all, Moore very clearly implies that Heston showed up in Littleton almost immediately after the shooting to tell the mayor of Denver to go to hell, and to pry his rifle from his cold dead hands. But we know that the "cold dead hands" speech was given in North Carolina, not Colorado, and not the next week but 9 months later. Watch the film: is that the impression that the lying sack of shit Moore works toward giving?
Demonstrating how Moore UTTERLY LIED about the way in which one acquires a rifle from the bank that gives them away for purchasing a certificate of deposit is not "hitting any of them"? How is the exposure of an outright LIE not a good criticism of Bowling for Columbine??
Why did Moore walk out the door of the bank holding his new rifle triumphantly, as though he were handed the rifle inside the bank? Why did he not make clear to his audience that he had to pass all the legally required background checks, and select and acquire his rifle at a completely different location? Answer: Moore lies. Moore likes to twist reality to give whatever impression he prefers to give, regardless of how that impression squares with actual reality.
Um, not except for the fact that Heston is wearing two different motherfucking suits in the shots of him.
Not except for the fact that transcripts of the speeches show utterly different context from what is shown in the clips in B.F.C.
How fuckin' confused are you?!
So you attached the ad that the bank ran, offering the rifles to customers... And? No one is arguing that the bank didn't make the rifle offer. If you bothered to understand my post, you'd know that the issue is that Moore makes direct commentary on the "dangerous" idea of giving away guns in a bank -- BUT THE BANK DOESN'T [I]DO[/I] THAT. One does not pick up the rifle at the bank: one has to acquire it at a gun shop. It's like being given a voucher. So when Moore depicts himself getting his rifle AT the BANK and walking out with it, THAT IS STAGED: IT IS *BULLSHIT*. It's proof of Moore's penchant for distorting the way things are in favor of making them seem to support his thesis.
-
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites