Exactly why refuting the allegded 'facts' in your previous post would be a pointless exercise at this time.


As far as the links posted earlier about MM, I have seen neither an objective nor a compelling argument that Moore is a liar or skews facts. I have seen a whole bunch of nit-picking hyperbole that doesnt stand up to critical analysis when weighed by the questions "Is Moore a liar? Does Moore skew facts?"

Telling me the NRA came to Columbine right after the shooting to hold a pro-gun rally incenses me. When I find out that the NRA had an annual meeting that had been scheduled for several months, that 2 separate annual meetings were spliced together to show me a speech from the previous year's meeting, and that the annual meeting following Columbine was drastically cut down because of the tragedy, I am more angry at Moore than I ever was at the NRA. That's not hyperbole, which is a word I think you have been using incorrectly.

But, hey, if you don't see it, that's fine. I can walk you up the ladder, but you got to make the leap to the roof on your own.

I have been using hyperbole quite well.


hyperbole

\Hy*per"bo*le\, n. [L., fr. Gr?, prop., an overshooting, excess, fr. Gr. ? to throw over or beyond; "ype`r over + ? to throw. See Hyper-, Parable, and cf. Hyperbola.] (Rhet.) A figure of speech in which the expression is an evident exaggeration of the meaning intended to be conveyed, or by which things are represented as much greater or less, better or worse, than they really are; a statement exaggerated fancifully, through excitement, or for effect.


Curious, I have read the critism's of the Denver speech scene in BFC, I have read Moore's rebuttal to the critism. I watched the movie again. I dont feel mislead. Its seems to me that your accusations of Moore being a liar about that scene is but an opinion, not a fact.

True two different peices of rally footage were used, one after the other. One, a stock piece shown during an introductory narration, the next peice intertwined with citizens protesting outside that gun rally. I'm still not feeling mislead. Two different peices of footage used one after the other for different reasons. My opinion-NON-ISSUE!

So what if they scaled down thier meeting, they still had one. So what if was planned in advanced or required by law in another state. I fail to see how ommitting this in the film constitutes deception. Another NON-ISSUE.


None of these things seem to matter to the citizens protesting (who Moores critics always conviently omit from their critism of the film-takes on to know one?) outside the rally, it didnt matter the Mayor if Denver who asked the NRA to cancel their meeting, so why should it matter to me, whether it was in the film or not?

Well, I ain't gonna keep beating the same dead horse.

So, I'll skip to a new one.

It doesn't bother you any at all that Moore took a year-old contractual understanding that Disney would not distribute the film and spun it as a Miramax/Disney war to masterfully pander to the press and garner support for his film?

And it doesn't bother you the way he acted like a big baby at the Oscars?

And, do you find it interesting at all that Moore refuses to give an interview to the documentary-in-progress "Michael Moore Hates America" when he spent 30 minutes of "Roger & Me" whining and moaning and trashing Roger for not meeting with him?

Oh, and I love it when people post definitions. I bet www.dictionary.com gets more traffic from IWF'ers than it does from newspaper and book editors. :D

[ 06-17-2004, 02:36 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

Oh, I promised to link the article earlier:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=39004

Here's an interesting read -- Moore faked an interview for his book "Stupid White Men." Completely made up an interview with a guy he'd never met.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=38632

There are a lot of other interesting articles linked at the bottom of the article on worldnetdaily, if you're open-minded enough to ferret out facts from a source that is politically aligned against you.

Probably because everyone and their one toothed grandmother has been trying to interview Moore for bash projects of their own... I posted one a few pages back, you might want to dig it up.
Been watching the trailers on that site btw, and it amuses me that the guy has a "mission" to point out that Moore's documentary is stretching the truth too far - a mission that he seems to take up by making a potentially skewed documentary of his own. ;) Ah well. If I was Moore, I'd be flattered; apparently he's deemed important enough - or too much of a threat - to have his "dangerous political agenda" featured in his own documentary. Of course it's going to have its flaws just the same, but heck - it's pretty much guaranteeing plenty of hard-ons for Moore bashers, so I suppose there's quite a lot of public interest for it either way. And this Wilson guy's got Penn Jilette in it! How cool is that? http://www.ironworksforum.com/ubb/no...ons/icon10.gif

[ 06-17-2004, 03:35 PM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]

Well, to be fair, that's just one guy's word against another. I don't know, it just seems to be a bit far-fetched a thing to "just" make up (though on the other hand it's hard to believe someone isn't familiar with the Iliad and the Oddyssey just the same - perhaps Moore accidently (?) talked to someone else?), and I have no doubts that the same legal team who thoroughly screened Bowling for Columbine for any potential allegations of falsehood have doublechecked Stupid White Men for any as well. Has Moore responded to those allegations, by the way?

Anyway, got a copy of Stupid White Men for my birthday a while back. Even though I'm somewhat skeptical, I'll give it a try as soon as my exams are over. Will get back to you about it. [img]smile.gif[/img]

As I've mentioned before, you can disemminate a lot of misinformation without fear of slander or libel. As a documentary producer usually trashing famous or political people, the legal limits on the things Moore can say are the same as those applicable to The National Enquirer. Just making a note of it, because no one seems to get that there's not a big threat of litigation hanging over his head -- not really.

The thing with Moore is that he is treated as this great journalist or bringer of truth, when really he is producing opinion pieces. That doesn't mean the pieces aren't good and thought provoking, but it also doesn't mean they are fair or balanced.

Moore has a point to make, he has a medium at his disposal, and he takes advantage of it. The right has Rush, the left has Mike. Both make some good points, both have ready made audiences who would believe them if they said the sky was falling, and both are a bit too full of their own self righteousness.

I believe the hyperbole(since I've seen the definition, I'd thought I'd try it out) of Disney's 'forbidden distribution' my have brought out helpers Mike may not be interested in...

[ 06-17-2004, 04:17 PM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

As I've mentioned before, you can disemminate a lot of misinformation without fear of slander or libel. As a documentary producer usually trashing famous or political people, the legal limits on the things Moore can say are the same as those applicable to The National Enquirer. Just making a note of it, because no one seems to get that there's not a big threat of litigation hanging over his head -- not really. </font>[/QUOTE]True, but in this case it supposedly concerns an actual 100% lie, not a distortion or manipulation of the truth. If this guy had complained that Moore ripped his words out of context, I could understand that; he wouldn't be the first one to claim as such. But Fred Barnes actually claims he's never even spoken to Moore in the first place, which somehow strikes me as very peculiar. Either Moore has acted strangely out of character despite his usual care to word his claims - be they distorted or not - or Barnes isn't entirely truthful himself here.

Else what we have here is (as far as I know) the first black and white lie Moore has ever been caught telling in one of his books or documentaries; all of the others still seem to be mostly in a grey area, closer to opinion and biased perspective than actual fact.

[ 06-17-2004, 04:29 PM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]