[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: 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.

You took the pious attitude with me first, claiming that I didn't feel positions in a debate should be supported with facts. Your whole paragraph about asking your Daddy about the rules of debate and the use of facts was done in a facetious manner. The whole post was rather pious and condescending towards me and I called you on it. If that is "name calling", so be it. I notice you had no problem retaliating in kind.

Originally posted by Chewbacca: 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.

First of all, I haven't watched BFC because of my disgust for Moore - so I didn't know about the other conventions being held in cities shortly after major tragedies. I can hardly be accused of "ommitting" facts that I was not even aware of.

I will agree that the NRA should have either cancelled their convention in Denver or focused on the irresponsible use of handguns by minors to commit massacres. In fact, given the timing of the convention, the NRA should have used it as a forum for the public to voice their concerns regarding handguns and gun control laws. So I concur they made a very poor decision to hold the convention and to stay with the pre-scheduled agenda instead of addressing the tragedy that had just occurred.

Originally posted by Chewbacca: 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.

No, I actually didn't know that. I have to admit that surprises me.

Originally posted by Chewbacca: In your opinion, or are you the one on the high horse stating that your opinion is the only correct one?

I'm just pointing out how Moore is putting the spin on this issue. He says his movie was funded by "Disney money", yet he admitted in an interview on CNN that Eisner had told him a year in advance that he was not happy with Miramax's decision to pursue the movie and that Disney would NOT distribute it when it was completed. But by saying his movie was funded by "Disney money" instead of Miramax, Moore is trying to imply that Disney "backed off" of thier initial reluctance against his project and gave him the "go ahead". He also claims that Disney is trying to prevent his movie from being seen in America...but Disney has never said he couldn't seek other distributors of his film. They just repeated the decision they made last year that THEY wouldn't distribute it.

That is a "spin" of the actual facts. If you choose not to see it or believe it, that is your choice. I'm not saying my opinion is the only correct one, nor am I getting on my "high horse". I'm pointing out documented facts about Moore's behavior regarding this project, but you choose not to believe them. Again, that is your choice.

Originally posted by Chewbacca: quote: Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: 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. [/QUOTE]Yes - in my opinion. An opinion that is no more valid than your own, but also is no less valid than your own.