Fahrenheit 911

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Your posting of that article takes your argument nowhere. I never denied that the bank gives "interest" in the form of a rifle. I disputed the impression given by Moore in the film that a customer can walk in, sign up for a CD, and then leave with possession of a rifle.

Let's look at the basic implication, which is that it's a bad thing for banks to give away rifles.

Why?

If a person were eligible to be given a rifle by the bank, legally, he would ALSO be eligible to purchase a bank at any regular gun store, so what's the difference??

If the customer wanted to shoot up the bank, or rob the bank, he is not dependent on getting the rifle given to him there in the bank; he could just buy a rifle at Walmart, along with ammunition (that the bank does not provide) and bring it to the bank.



How about a different link?:

Probably the Best Article on BFC, by Respected Author David Kopel

From my link:

Quote

The introduction of Bowling is a purported clip from an NRA documentary, announcing that the viewer is about to see a National Rifle Association film. Obviously, Bowling is not an NRA film, and so Moore makes it clear right at the beginning that Bowling is not a documentary (based on true facts), but rather a mockumentary (based on fictitious "facts"). It's a humorous movie, but the biggest joke is on the audience, which credulously accepts the "facts" in the movie as if they were true...

...We are taken to the North County Bank in Michigan, which — like several other banks in the United States — allows people who buy a Certificate of Deposit to receive their interest in the form of a rifle or shotgun. (The depositor thereby receives the full value of the interest immediately, rather than over a term of years.)

Moore goes through the process of buying the CD and answering questions for the federal Form 4473 registration sheet. Although a bank employee makes a brief reference to a "background check," the audience never sees the process whereby the bank requires Moore to produce photo identification, then contacts the FBI for a criminal records check on Moore, before he is allowed to take possession of the rifle.

Moore asks: "Do you think it's a little bit dangerous handing out guns at a bank?" The banker's answer isn't shown.

So the audience is left with a smug sense of the pro-gun bank's folly. Yet just a moment's reflection shows that there is not the slightest danger. To take possession of the gun, the depositor must give the bank thousands of dollars (an unlikely way to start a robbery). He must then produce photo identification (thus making it all but certain that the robber would be identified and caught), spend at least a half hour at the bank (thereby allowing many people to see and identify him), and undergo an FBI background check (which would reveal criminal convictions disqualifying most of the people inclined to bank robbery). A would-be robber could far more easily buy a handgun for a few hundred dollars on the black market, with no identification required.

The genius of Bowling for Columbine is that the movie does not explicitly make these obvious points about the safety of the North County Bank's program. Rather, the audience is simply encouraged to laugh along with Moore's apparent mockery of the bank, without realizing that the joke is on them for seeing danger where none exists. This theme is developed throughout the film.

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Your posting of that article takes your argument nowhere. I never denied that the bank gives "interest" in the form of a rifle. I disputed the impression given by Moore in the film that a customer can walk in, sign up for a CD, and then leave with possession of a rifle.

Let's look at the basic implication, which is that it's a bad thing for banks to give away rifles.

Why?

If a person were eligible to be given a rifle by the bank, legally, he would ALSO be eligible to purchase a bank at any regular gun store, so what's the difference??

If the customer wanted to shoot up the bank, or rob the bank, he is not dependent on getting the rifle given to him there in the bank; he could just buy a rifle at Walmart, along with ammunition (that the bank does not provide) and bring it to the bank.



How about a different link?:

Probably the Best Article on BFC, by Respected Author David Kopel

From my link:

Quote

The introduction of Bowling is a purported clip from an NRA documentary, announcing that the viewer is about to see a National Rifle Association film. Obviously, Bowling is not an NRA film, and so Moore makes it clear right at the beginning that Bowling is not a documentary (based on true facts), but rather a mockumentary (based on fictitious "facts"). It's a humorous movie, but the biggest joke is on the audience, which credulously accepts the "facts" in the movie as if they were true...

...We are taken to the North County Bank in Michigan, which — like several other banks in the United States — allows people who buy a Certificate of Deposit to receive their interest in the form of a rifle or shotgun. (The depositor thereby receives the full value of the interest immediately, rather than over a term of years.)

Moore goes through the process of buying the CD and answering questions for the federal Form 4473 registration sheet. Although a bank employee makes a brief reference to a "background check," the audience never sees the process whereby the bank requires Moore to produce photo identification, then contacts the FBI for a criminal records check on Moore, before he is allowed to take possession of the rifle.

Moore asks: "Do you think it's a little bit dangerous handing out guns at a bank?" The banker's answer isn't shown.

So the audience is left with a smug sense of the pro-gun bank's folly. Yet just a moment's reflection shows that there is not the slightest danger. To take possession of the gun, the depositor must give the bank thousands of dollars (an unlikely way to start a robbery). He must then produce photo identification (thus making it all but certain that the robber would be identified and caught), spend at least a half hour at the bank (thereby allowing many people to see and identify him), and undergo an FBI background check (which would reveal criminal convictions disqualifying most of the people inclined to bank robbery). A would-be robber could far more easily buy a handgun for a few hundred dollars on the black market, with no identification required.

The genius of Bowling for Columbine is that the movie does not explicitly make these obvious points about the safety of the North County Bank's program. Rather, the audience is simply encouraged to laugh along with Moore's apparent mockery of the bank, without realizing that the joke is on them for seeing danger where none exists. This theme is developed throughout the film.

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[kallend 2,114]

Does posting it twice make it come true?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[craichead 0]

Quote

You don't post like a "she."

I just find this kind of funny and wonder why you chose to mention it. Not meant to incite anything.

Quote

As far as me getting angry while in possession of a gun, it's happened lots of times. I never did anything with the gun. It was as though I simply didn't even have it. I'm not that type of person.

That's good--glad to hear it. I just said that I hope your anger never gets the best of you. So far, it hasn't. Let's hope it never does.

Quote

You're saying that you're okay with people having guns as long as the guns they want are legal for them to own. That is hardly neutral, since there are constant efforts underway to make it ILLEGAL to own the very guns that we currently own legally. So if they made it illegal for me to have the gun I have today, according to what you wrote, you would no longer support me being able to have it, yes?

Didn't say I was neutral, just said I didn't have a firm opinion about it. I'm not very informed about the gun laws (current, pending or proposed). I just don't have that much of a vested interest. However, the impression that I get is that "anti-gun" people have proposed laws that just make it more of a nuisance to get a gun, not ban them entirely. But if my impression is incorrect, educate me (feel free to PM), and please don't do it by getting angry--otherwise I'm not going to listen to you.

If it did become illegal for you to have a gun, I would probably think that it's kinda silly that you wouldn't be allowed to have one if you don't have a criminal record and are a responsible, upstanding citizen (et cetera, et cetera). But I still wouldn't have a very strong opinion about it one way or the other (probably because I haven't been affected by guns directly), and I'm not going to go out and rally or anything.

_Pm

__
"Scared of love, love and aeroplanes...falling out, I said takes no brains." -- Andy Partridge (XTC)

[AndyMan 7]

Quote

Then why did Moore not indict the NEWS MEDIA specifically (and almost exclusively)?? T

BUAHAHAHAHAHA!

WATCH THE FUCKING MOVIE!!!!

HE DID INDICT THE NEWS MEDIA!!! While he only spent a few minutes talking about the NRA, his criticism of the "news media" pretty much runs the whole length of the film.

For gods sake, if you're going to criticize something, know what you're talking about!

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[craichead 0]

Now now, Andy...calm down. Do I have to get on your case now about being unnecessarily belligerent?

_Pm

__
"Scared of love, love and aeroplanes...falling out, I said takes no brains." -- Andy Partridge (XTC)

[nacmacfeegle 0]

"Does posting it twice make it come true?"

Only if you wear the Ruby Slippers and chant
'There's no place like home, There's no place like home'

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

You don't post like a "she."-

So what does a "she" post like???

[Kennedy 0]

My impression is he blames a bunch of abstract ideas.

He blames 'the gun culture,' though in reality guns are not the problem.

He blames fear mongering, then goes out in his movie and incites fear.

He blames media sensationalism, then goes out a makes a monster movie based on sensationalism.


btw - it's kinda hard to "blame the media" when you're in bed with them. (you know, lie with dogs wake with fleas)

Just look at his recent publicity stunt about Disney.
Moore: "Oh look, they're gonna cancel my show!"
Reality: Moore knew for a year Disney had no interest in making F911 public.

The man is an attention whore of the worst sort, and when he's not completely full of shit, he plays so loose and fast with the facts that, I'm sorry, calling it a documentary is an insult.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Keith 0]

Quote

You don't post like a "she."

This statement would imply that you think women can't be intelligent and articulate.

Keith

Don't Fuck with me Keith - J. Mandeville

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Quote

You don't post like a "she."

I just find this kind of funny and wonder why you chose to mention it. Not meant to incite anything.

I wasn't the one who singled out a specific mention of your gender. I simply responded to your clarification, and then moved on immediately.

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Does posting it twice make it come true?

Not insofar as it was already true.

Posting it twice is just evidence that my Mac at work is a piece of shit.

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Quote

You don't post like a "she."

This statement would imply that you think women can't be intelligent and articulate.

Dude, what the fuck do you know?

"This statement" implies nothing of the sort. It is 100% VAGUE about what it "implies."

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[kallend 2,114]

Quote

Quote

You don't post like a "she."-

So what does a "she" post like???

Oooh - he's in deep trouble now

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Keith 0]

Quote

Dude, what the fuck do you know?

At least I know what the fuck I'm talking about, and am willing to admit when I've fucked up.

Keith

Don't Fuck with me Keith - J. Mandeville

[craichead 0]

Quote

I wasn't the one who singled out a specific mention of your gender. I simply responded to your clarification, and then moved on immediately.

Okay, all I did was correct your false assumption--did you think I was singling it out to start another debate? Why did you feel it was necessary to say "You don't post like a 'she'"?

You've chosen not to respond to a lot of specific points in my posts (and that's fine with me). However, your "100% VAGUE" response can imply any number of things. It may be vague, but it certainly isn't neutral. Especially when you say it in Speaker's Corner and when it's coming from a politically super-charged person such as yourself.

So I'm curious (I'm sure many others are, too)--what does a "she" post like?

_Pm

__
"Scared of love, love and aeroplanes...falling out, I said takes no brains." -- Andy Partridge (XTC)

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Does posting it twice make it come true?

There's no question that Illinois has a waiting period. 24 hours for a rifle, after getting the FOID, which apparently can take up to 30 days. This waiting period dates back well before the movie, so pray tell us how he managed to do it?

Quoting a bank's ad is not proof by ommision.

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

You don't post like a "she."-

So what does a "she" post like???

Oooh - he's in deep trouble now

Nah, he's not in any trouble... I was genuinely hoping to hear his explanation of what that was supposed to mean, only because I am sure it would be highly amusing. Somehow I don't think I'll get an answer though...

[Keith 0]

Quote

Somehow I don't think I'll get an answer though...

Yeah, I think you're right. He usually exits a thread when he's been had.

Keith

Don't Fuck with me Keith - J. Mandeville

[billvon 3,087]

>Yeah, I think you're right. He usually exits a thread when he's been had.

I recall the women who claimed to be from Denmark, who argued strenuously that she really was from Denmark despite some evidence to the contrary. And just because she didn't speak Dutch didn't mean that she wasn't from Denmark; she had left the country early.

Someone answered "No, it's not that you can't speak Dutch. It's that you don't even know that people from Denmark speak Danish."

She didn't post after that, if I recall correctly.

[craichead 0]

Pay closer attention. The bank is in Michigan. Michigan does not have a waiting period.

NRA-ILA Web Site, Michigan State Gun Laws

_Pm

__
"Scared of love, love and aeroplanes...falling out, I said takes no brains." -- Andy Partridge (XTC)

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Quote

Somehow I don't think I'll get an answer though...

Yeah, I think you're right. He usually exits a thread when he's been had.

So you get a booby prize, I guess, for being wrong?

If I were sensitive, I'd call your statement a personal attack. "Usually exits a thread when he's been had"? Talk about a wild, unfounded generalization.

When I've been "had," I usually either admit I stand corrected (I'm certain I've used that very phrase on these forums before), or I clam up. What, you don't?

In my defense I cite as evidence the fact that in many of the threads in which I take part, I post upwards of 5 or 10 times during the discussion's course. That's hardly "exiting a thread" when the adversity starts.

If you're complaining that I don't get around to answering all of your petty points and questions, well, NO one here answers all of everyone's points and questions. For me, there isn't time. It takes a while to respond to all this crap. And yes, I cherry-pick the parts of the discussion that I actually want to pursue. And I have been in the position as you are of complaining that someone did not come near to addressing MY point or question.

As far as my saying that craichead doesn't post like a "she"...

You were out of line to apply your particular suspicion to what I meant. What you said came out of your OWN head, and was not contained either explicitly or implicitly in the text that I posted.

What I was thinking when I wrote that was that it is far more common for the GUYS on this forum to "get into it" with others, especially on politically or ideologically-charged subjects. I found craichead to be disputatious, sarcastic, and confrontational in a way that I have rarely seen women on dropzone.com be. So it struck me at first, second, third glance that I was arguing with a male, given that I got no inkling from her username that she was a female.

It had nothing at all to do with whether a woman has the intellectual capacity to debate with men. You were out of line to attach that allegation to what I said. There was no evidence of it -- it was a wild guess and a wrong one.

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[Keith 0]

My point was that you've gained a reputation for yourself around here. The idea of you exiting a thread wasn't uniquely mine, I've heard similar said about you several times before. Your style isn't unique either; your type comes and goes. And if I were thenthitive, I'd have considered your diatribes personal attacks too. But then again, I'd have to lend credibility to what you have to say.

(edited to add)

Quote

What I was thinking when I wrote that was that it is far more common for the GUYS on this forum to "get into it" with others, especially on politically or ideologically-charged subjects. I found craichead to be disputatious, sarcastic, and confrontational in a way that I have rarely seen women on dropzone.com be. So it struck me at first, second, third glance that I was arguing with a male,

Thank You for Proving my Point. What? You don't get my point? I'm surprised.

Keith

Don't Fuck with me Keith - J. Mandeville

[Michele 1]

Quote

to be disputatious, sarcastic, and confrontational in a way that I have rarely seen women on dropzone.com be.

Haaaaaaaaaaaaaahhahaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaa....

I don't think you've read a lot of posts, then. Lordamercy, we "girls" get into some serious disputations, sarcastic and confrontational "discussions" all the time! ROFL. We fling mud just like you guys do.

PJ, you're not going to be able to gracefully extricate yourself from this. Howsabout you just say you're sorry and move on? It was clear what your post meant, despite your contentions and protestations.

Quote

if I were thenthitive

Man, Keith, you're all over it today! ROFL again.

Ciels-
Michele (NOT Michael, but Michele. All girl.)

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

PJ, you're not going to be able to gracefully extricate yourself from this. Howsabout you just say you're sorry and move on? It was clear what your post meant, despite your contentions and protestations.

Ciels-
Michele (NOT Michael, but Michele. All girl.)

You know, I took the time to write out what I did mean, to counter whatsisname's accusation that I was just being out-and-out sexist and implying that I thought women couldn't be intellgent and articulate, and now you're in essence calling me a LIAR, and saying that you don't believe what I articulated to be my meaning in the prior post.

So **** you for insinuating that my explanation is a lie. I don't owe an apology, since my initial statement contained no insult in the first place.

No, but that one did, and it got you some time off.

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"