[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: Geez...I hope you don't get too light-headed while riding that high horse of yours.

Hahahaha! A sure sign a discussion is going to hell is when one or more particpiants start acting like name-calling children. Well I would rather have my head in the clouds than buried in the sand.

I never attacked Moore for using unaltered facts to back up his position. I attacked him for omitting or "skewing" certain information presented in his films. I gave one example from BFC, where Moore "chastised" the NRA for holding their annual convention in Denver just one month (IIRC) after the Columbine shootings. This was done purely to make the NRA appear like uncaring ogres. But Moore conveniently omits the fact that the annual convention is scheduled a year in advance and that the logistics prevent it from being moved to a brand new location with just one months notice (all the people planning to attend would have to cancel reservations made in Denver and try to book rooms at whatever new venue is chosen).

You have ommitted the fact that the topic of the venue could have focused on the irresponsible use of handguns by minors to commit massacres. You also omit the fact that the meeting could have been canceled or postponed and the hardship endured by those with plans to attend could have deemed a sacrifice for the memeory of the 12 people slain by the wreckless use of a handgun. You also omit the fact that dozens of people protested the NRA's meeting so soon after Columbine making Moore's mention of it documentry in nature-regardless of his opinions of the matter. You also ommit the fact that the NRA, under the leadership of Charleton Heston has held meetings in other cities soon after handgun tragedies. By your own statements your ommissions make you no better than Moore.

BTW- YOu do know that Moore is a long time card carrying memeber of the NRA right? You do recall the beggining of the film where gun owners in the Michigan Militia were presented as the decent normal folk that they are rtaher than uncaring ogres.

In his own rebuttal to Disney, he says that "6 million dollars of Disney's money was poured into the film". Technically, that is true - but it is a blantant misrepresentation of the facts. Moore is trying to imply that Disney actually supported the film for a year and then pulled the plug at the last minute. However, the facts as presented in the OP present a different account. "Disney" didn't pour a dime into the movie - Miramax did - and they did so against the express wishes of the parent company and Disney's CEO. So Moore is trying to make it appear that Disney actually supported the film with their own money when that is not the case. Again, it is just a subtle twisting of the actual facts. What Moore says is technically accurate, but the it gives a very false implication. And Moore deliberately omits or "turns" the facts to promote a certain viewpoint.

In your opinion, or areyou the one on the high horse stating that your opinion is the only correct one?

The question of violence in America is a topic worthy of discussion, but there is no reason for Moore to go out of his way to cast the NRA in a bad light other than the fact that he doesn't like the NRA. He attacked the NRA in regards to their annual convention and also in the infamous "interview" with Charlton Heston (in which he used some creative editing from more than one interview to make it appear as if he soundly defeated all of Heston's points supporting the NRA). Would the question of violence in America be weakened by NOT attacking the NRA in such a manner?

So what? You disagree with how Moore portrayed the NRA (based on the NRA's decisions to have meeting in locales soon after a major handgun tragedies) Heston could have answered Moore's questions differently perhaps or even declined the interview in the first place. As far as editing goes-every film gets edited. Claiming that the editing was intentional to support an opinion is quite a stretch of the imagination if you ask me. Regardless- I didn't think Heston got his ass handed to him, but I do think he was hit with some hard questions about a complex quite unprepared. So in the end he backed out. No big deal IMO. Moore's critic's make mountains out of molehills with regards to these issues. Never do they consider having a Gun rally in Flint MI so soon after a six year old shot another six year old could maybe be insensitive. The NRA got its ass handed to it for good reason in my opinion.

That is why I have a problem with Michael Moore, because it simply isn't possible to tell what is actual fact and what is being "skewed" to support his personal agenda.

In your opinion.