[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: Well if you thought that post was directed towards you, particularly in a condesending way- you are quite mistaken.

LOL - So I am mistaken, am I? Well let's just do a quick review then, shall we?

I started off with these comments about Moore...

Aaahhh, but it IS a "crime of character" when your slanted op-ed pieces are presented as unbiased truth and facts. It completely eliminates any trust the viewer can have in the validity of the facts being presented.


followed by...

Does Michael Moore make it known that the "facts" he is presenting are slanted to support his views? If so, then I give him credit for doing that. Of course, it isn't like anybody really expects him to present an unbiased account of the facts anyway.

To which you responded...

But back to all the "skewwed" facts Moore presents in BFC- a couple of examples: He states some figures about handgun deaths in various countries- Are these facts skewwed to support his veiws? Or do these facts provoke the central question of the film....I guess that is a matter of opinion.

That was all well and good, but then you obviously decided to add another comment to emphasize your point, so you made another post immediately after that one and said...

Oh and one other thing on the idea that offering facts to support an opinion or poase a question is somehow wrong.

That is the way it works or atleast that is how I learned to make a persuasive argument in speech and debate class. I will ask my Dad-he is a High School debate coach. If he tells me it is wrong to to use facts to pose a question or to make a persuasive argument I will concede that Moore is an evil doer, or at least takes the wrong approach to invoking thought and seeking answers to challenging questions and to persuading people to to understand his opinion- what ever that maybe.

I never said the above comments were insulting...I said that your tone was pious and condescending, and I still stand by that claim.

And since I was the only member that had posted on Page 3 (other than yourself, of course ) at this point and you had quoted several of my comments in your posts, it does seem logical to assume your comments were directed at me.

Originally posted by Chewbacca: Considering you seem incapable of not taking my posting style personally and are reading insult and condesending tone into where there is none, I think it has reached the point where continuing discussion with you here is pointless.

Why do I seem incapable of not taking your posting style personally? Perhaps it has something to do with comments like this...

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.

These comments were in response to the accusation I made against Moore about chastising the NRA for holding their convention in Denver right after the Columbine shootings, but conveniently ommitting the fact that the convention had been scheduled a year in advance.

In case the font color doesn't highligh it enough, you directed your comments specifically towards me by using "you" and "your" a total of 7 times. Gee, I can't imagine why I took your comments personally [img]graemlins/1ponder.gif[/img] Or are you going to claim that you were using those terms in a generic sense to apply to all members of IW?

You know, the really sad part is that I actually agreed with your points about the Denver convention, but it appears as if it was more important for you to attack me for "ommitting" facts I didn't even know about (unlike Moore) than it was for you to acknowledge I had agreed with you and pursue the conversation from there. [img]graemlins/dontknowaboutyou.gif[/img]

As for "reading insults where none exist", I offer this comment of yours made in response to my accusation that you were getting on your "high horse" with the post where you were gonna ask your Dad about the formal rules of debate...

Well I would rather have my head in the clouds than buried in the sand.

Nope, can't imagine why I would think that comment was insulting.

Originally posted by Chewbacca: Take care.

Thanks. I will.