[Oblivion437]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: Sorry Oblivion- I think Hardy's website is full of opinion and conjecture; ( and incorrect orbroken links to the "sources") much of which is, sadly, presented as fact.

Most of those links are well over a year old, and Hardy hasn't updated certain portions of his site including new statistical information which bumps the US homicide rate down from 23 to 24...

You may think it all you like about his site, but at least be willing to defend that point. If you're going to stand by Moore, at least show us all how Hardy is wrong.

That whole conspiracy theory about the Heston interveiw being staged that you highlight is the dictionary defintion of conjecture.

How much do you know about parallax view, editing, camera placement, take timing, optical soundtracks or edit placement? I happen to know quite a bit, and there are certain undeniable facts that stem from that knowledge. The fact is, what Moore actually said to Heston is not on camera. Only a quarter at most of the interview between Moore and Heston is on camera... The conjecture would be what's missing... He outright lied to someone in an interview (it wouldn't be the first time he claimed to do something he would be in prison for) saying he purchased a pistol, legally, in the state of California. If it was done in one take, we'd be seeing the cameras but we don't, it's undeniable that a second take was used. From the images we have in the film, the second take's Optical sound track is obviously what's used, thus we can deduct that Moore's words to Heston, what he actually said, aren't on camera, what you think of Moore allows you to make what logical fill you want, the least of which is Moore just saying what he'd previously said, the most is Moore saying nothing more than "Hey!" or something like that to get his attention, making a gesture of some sort to then lead him off, and then Heston walking away. Somehow, and this is opinion and conjecture, unlike Hardy's essential point about that scene, and the whole damned film, I think there was enough in that interview, and Heston not walking away from anything important, that Moore would have looked like a jack-ass pestering an old man with Alzheimer's (something Moore denied knowing, which was all over the nuze) after being taken to school in a debate where a man points to one of our most real problems (racism) that he himself had a lot in helping to work towards overcoming during the Civil Rights protest era. We're to choose between a man who marched with MLK Jr. and a man who points to his own doctored Bush/Quayle campaign ads (this much he did admit) and select clips from cops (all the episodes I remember it was white trash getting kicked around, and throwing beer bottles) as "fear of the black man" and we're supposed to give them equal footing? I can't take Moore seriously at this point, but Heston I can. At this point, if I were one of the judges, I'd have said to him, "produce the optical soundtrack from the first take of the walk-out moment for us, or you're barred."

Anyway the amount of conjecture and opinion in the guise of fact as well as the obvious antii-Moore bias is quite telling. It appears Hardy has alot more in common with Moore than you would ever care to admit.

This is how the argument has become circular. I use Hardy to take Moore to task on specific points, and you dismiss it as conjecture. It's fact, and there's no denying it. I would ask you to point out this opinion disguised as fact, but that's not going to happen...

Anyway discussing this with you is becoming quite circular and unproductive, so I am taking my leave.

When you're unwilling to clarify or actually stand on your assertions, of course that's going to happen. If I build the empire state building, you can claim to build a taller building, or tear mine down, but until you can...

The last word does not mean the correct word. So don't take my probable ignoring of your future posts on the topic of BFC as an admission that you have finally scored the ultimate 'gotcha' which has left me unable to reply.

Of course, but you've not actually defended any assertions on Hardy's dissertation with a specific point of any kind, much less a reasonable claim, so this reads more like a cop-out than anything else. I'm not attacking you, this is how it looks. I don't think ill of you in either case (cop-out or tire of the circle) and I don't have any intention to attack your character with this statement.

[ 07-03-2004, 11:19 AM: Message edited by: Oblivion437 ]