The world's cup runneth over with them ;)

<font color=deepskyblue>This isn't new news, <font color=orange>Chewbacca</font>, but it does serve to illustrate the type of misconception I've been accusing Moore of deliberately creating.

Disney never said that Moore couldn't distribute his film, they just said THEY wouldn't do it. Disney has always said that Moore was free to seek other distributers of his film...this was even mentioned in the article that started this thread.

<font color=yellow>Miramax is free to seek another distributor in North America, but such a deal would force it to share profits and be a blow to Harvey Weinstein, a big donor to Democrats.</font>

And distribution rights have already been sold to several overseas companies.

<font color=yellow>But Disney executives indicated that they would not budge from their position forbidding Miramax to be the distributor of the film in North America. Overseas rights have been sold to a number of companies, executives said.</font>

So Disney is NOT trying to prevent <font color=white>Farenheit 9/11</font> from being seen at all. The only thing they have "forbidden" is for Miramax to be the distributer. But they said that Moore was free to seek other distributers...and given the amount of publicity this movie is already generating, I'm sure he won't have any problem finding one.

Remember that they tried to "sell" the movie to Mel Gibson's company, Icon, at first - but were turned down. However, Miramax immediately stepped in after the rejection from Icon and gladly brought the rights to the film. So Moore WILL find a company that is more than willing to distribute <font color=white>Farenheit 9/11</font> for him.</font>

<font color=deepskyblue>Another very good friend of mine (who also happens to be a Bush-hating liberal atheist ;) ) told me the same thing almost a year ago. He made the same point, that even if I don't agree with Moore personally, he does raise some good issues.

And if I am going to continue attacking Moore's directorial ethics, I should at least watch the film I'm criticizing. So I will watch it sometime, although WHEN that will be is another question. I only rent movies about once every other month, so it isn't like I have a great deal of spare time. Still, I will add Bowling For Columbine to the list of movies I need to pick up and see sometime soon.</font>

BFC is not that bad -- what gets you about it is when you later realize the creative editing that was done to trick you. But, what I really have against Moore is that he's severely biased -- not a good trait for a documentarian -- and he is willing to upstage anything to make a political stump speech (including the Oscars of course -- I hope the Academy uses that as an excuse to never give him a nod again).

Of course the NRA or the rabid right wing also have the freedom to finance a documentary showing how sexy guns can make you feel and how the thousands of deaths each year are justified! Then try to get Disney to distribute it :hee:

:rolleyes: What about the tens of thousands that die in auto accidents? Do we out law cars? Or the tens of thousands that die of cardiac problems due to obeesity? Do we out law food?

And to insinuate that the NRA or "rabid right" feel that firearms are sexy and firearm related death is justified is unworthy of you Wellard.

I don't know of any NRA member that feels that any crime related death is justified. The NRAs position is that the guns are not the problem, the people that wield them for illicit purpose are.

Take another tool, an axe say ....
First person uses it to fell a tree for shelter and warmth.
Second person uses the same axe to cleave a persons head.

Is the axe bad? ........ No of course not.

"But a gun doesn't have any other purpose but death and destruction." (not directed at you mate ;) ) Well, neither does an axe. That tree is rather dead and effectively destroyed.

How about if I upgrade the axe to a chainsaw, much higher rate of destruction there. Not good enough?

Ok, how about professional lumber machines? If they can clear acres of Timber in short work, imagine what they would do to a crowd of people. It would be much messier than a firearm too.

A tool is a tool and always will be just a tool. It has no meaning or purpose until a living being uses it.

I was mainly pointing that one at the directors and 'people' of the Cannes Film Festival, who seem to enjoy exhibiting his work for its fairly un-unique (though well-presented) un-American views. But yes, like I said, the ignorance of a group of people across an ocean, about the inner workings of our country, or our culture, being 'fixed' by an arrogant loudmouth or not, doesn't change how things go on over here. It would be downright foolhardy to think Conservative thinkers are the only ones in charge...

<font color=deepskyblue><font color=yellow>What purpose do guns serve, other than killing people?</font> How about pleasure and enjoyment. Some people, myself included, simply enjoy a good outing shooting up cans, bottles, and other targets. Does this mean I will decide to use my gun on another person? Only if they break into my house and threaten my family. But that isn't why I own a gun (in fact, I keep my gun UNloaded in the house with three young children). The reason I own guns is because I like to shoot them at targets, plain and simple.

<font color=yellow>But all it takes is one tragic moment or accident and the gun can kill a person, either accidentally or deliberately.</font> True...and so can bungee jumping. Why do people bungee-jump? It's a dangerous sport in which even "professionals" have been killed due to the bungee cord being set at the wrong length? And what "purpose" does the bungee serve? Pleasure for those who use it, pure and simple - even though they know they are literally taking thier life in thier hands each time they do.</font>

<font color=deepskyblue>THANK YOU, <font color=tan>TIMBER</font>! You have summed up precisely why I dislike Moore and his "projects" far more succinctly than I have been able to. And you also highlighted exactly what I meant about him "manipulating" the facts to serve his purpose. Why did he have to splice footage from two separate speeches by Charlton Heston and make it appear as if it was a single speech? I presume he did so for the same reason the people who spliced together photos of Jane Fonda and Senator Kerry to make it appear that Fonda was introducing Kerry as a speaker at one of the anti-Vietnam rallies they attended. Kerry WAS at the same rally, but did NOT speak there. At others where he spoke (from the evidence I've seen so far), Fonda did NOT introduce him to the crowd.

The "reasoning" behind this conservate "creative editing" is the fact that some people obviously don't feel that Kerry's anti-Vietnam views are a strong enough criticism on their own...so they have to link him to Jane Fonda (who is fiercely despised by most Vietnam vets) to make his anti-Vietnam views that much more "repulsive".

It's an alteration of facts to make the overall statement appear more damaging than it really is.</font>

I do NOT want to get into this again, BUT

1. Every tool is designed for a specific purpose. Axes are for cutting trees, cars are for driving to work, a TV set is for entertainment and guns are for killing/hurting people (or deer in the case of hunting rifles).
2. Almost every tool can be misused to kill somebody. You can behead someone with the axe, drive him over with the car or smash the TV set over his head.
3. Guns can be used for other things than their main purpose (i.e. wounding): target practice, fieldstripping contests, or hammering in a nail.
4. If somebody buys a tool I assume he's going to use it as intended by its maufacturer. He's going to chop wood with the axe, drive home with his car, watch TV on his Plasmascreen and kill omebody with his gun, because that's what they're there for.
5. a handgun is the most cost-effective, practical tool for a single person to kill another. That's why the army and the police are not driving around in professional lumber machines. And if you don't believe them take a look at the mobsters. They're also not packing TV sets and axes, but handguns.
6. So the difference between a killing with an axe and killing with a gun is that in the first you are MISusing the tool but in the second you are fullfilling its MAIN PURPOSE.
7. To stretch it farther. Would you have supported an attack on Iraq if Georgie had told you that Saddam had a flotillia of professional lumber machines?
8. Sadly there do sometimes arise situations were killing/wounding another person is necessary to defend oneself (armed robbery, armed burglary,...). If you deem this situation likely you should equip yourself for it i.e. buy a gun.
But don't fool yourself into thinking you just bought a decorative item, you bought a tool for killing, so in case somebody wants to kill you you're first.

So again please focus on the point. You NEED guns in certain situations, BECAUSE they are different from other tools. So no more car analogies, please? pretty please?