[Oblivion437]

Originally posted by Grojlach: Note: I won't respond to anyone who thinks chopping my text into tiny pieces and responding to its parts out of their original context is a good idea.

That's a respectable stance, don't give justification to those who have to strawman your point to be able to respond...

I'll just side with Chewie on this one - it seems some of you make a really big deal about certain elements in Moore's documentaries, while others don't really understand what the fuss is all about, despite the fact that they (and me included) don't agree with at least part of Moore's techniques.

The point of difference I think is in the disagreeability. This was a film that won awards for its honesty and objectivity, which it possesses neither and is clearly provable as such. He won an Oscar, and is defended constantly for his apparent credibility, yet he lacks it in spades.

It's a difference in perspective, most clearly stemming from political point of view; it seems clear to me that the most rabid right wing defenders don't just disagree with Moore's perspectives (which is fair enough), it also seems they think that character assassination is a vital part of any Moore criticism

I don't much care about Moore the man. My point of contention is, and has always been about his work, and his defense of it. It would be a hasty generalization to assume that Moore's most rabid critics are all right wing. I note that a few of his critics are at least somewhat liberal in leaning (critics I personally know) and are hardly right wing. That he's managed to make himself into a pompous, lying asshole hardly require I think anything on the matter.

there is so much venom in some of you, that you don't really seem to see completely insignificant "manipulations" for what they really are, or seem to accept any online nut's conspiracy theories ("the Heston interview was faked!") as a solid truth, bashing your head against the wall out of sheer frustration because we're nut buying into it.

Except, no one contended that the interview was faked...Not even our "online nut," who merely noted that 3/4 of the interview itself isn't on film, and that the walk-out was, for reasons unjustifiable in documentarian logic, filmed in two takes. Moore's relation about that whole scene in the news comprises of three different stories, all of which contradict eachother and one involves a felony being committed.

Of course Michael Moore threw in some editorial manipulations. Of course he cut certain scenes (not just because he's an "Evil Gun-Hating Commie", but because the movie would be quite boring with several hours of extra footage, just because certain people get all kinds of weird things in their head regarding the missing elements - quod erat demonstrandum ). Of course he has an agenda with his movie. So What?

Those "editorial manipulations" which you seem to brush off make it something other than a documentary. Except, it's not that footage is missing, it's that what he chooses to leave out changes the meaning of what he shows.

I point out the following collection of sentences:

----------
"Did you murder your wife?"
"No."
"Are you David Hamilton?"
"Yes."
---------- Unedited segment of a fictional interview
"Did you murder your wife?"
"Yes."
---------- The version with a little bounce by the editors...

"Yeah, but he's lieing throughout the entire movie." Then sue him. What's stopping the NRA from sueing Michael Moore?

Read Hardy's response...

After all, according to you Moore lied about the date of the NRA convention

Balderdash, none of Moore's attackers have made any such claim in this thread.

formed sentences out of seperate parts of the speech, misrepresented the NRA because they "had no choice but to hold their meeting because of the law"

Actually, that point can be proven, just look at a transcript of the speech as appears in Moore's film, then look at the transcript of the whole speech. It's all in there, but that Moore decided to get more than a little creative with the non linear editing is not something you can seriously contend...

Also, just look at the dates surrounding the events in question. The rally (stripped down to the bare minimum in accordance with what they absolutely had to do) was held 11 days after the massacre. They had to provide cancellation notice 10 days before the rally. Between Columbine and the closure of cancellation date, they had 1 day to cancel, get the word out, and reschedule the whole thing. Now let me ask you this, do you think you could have done that, or would you be more than a little unreasonable to expect them to do something like that?

didn't show any footage of NRA members trying to explain that situation to the people protesting outside (just because Moore didn't show that part, it ought to have taken place, right?)

I don't know if such a thing did happen, I never made such a contention so I won't answer for it other than this: If in fact it did happen, would Moore, who has in written statements and in interviews expressed his anti-NRA sentiment, be at all willing to show us that? What's more, would the protestors be willing to listen to reason? These are the same people that are in most cases just a step away from mutating into riotors...

"obviously" faked the Heston interview in order to portray him as a racist jerk instead of the tree-hugging, puppy-loving peace activist he really is.

Actually, once again you're strawmanning... We don't know what was said in 3/4 of unshown interview, Heston may have clarified the mixed ethnicity point, and, if you understand anything about how mixed ethnicity has precipitated racism (Heston may very well have clarified this, but we'll probably never know) his point is well taken. Moore, having used biased samples to 'debunk' that idea in previous parts, has already set you up to think Heston is a racist or an idiot, or both... Are you going to deny Heston's personal history in breaking color barriers and standing up, personally, for civil rights? You don't know any of this from the film...

That's quite a list of accusations, and some of these could actually be proven in court easily, if necessary. There's footage of the NRA meeting, for one thing.

However, Heston is a public figure, the NRA a publicly-owned non-profit corporation. Therefore, quoting he and they out of context won't win you a dime, or get the judge to do anything to Moore.

So if you're all so convinced that all of these conspiracy theories hold any water (as you keep repeating them continuously), why don't you do anything about it?

You're sadly mistaken at calling them conspiracy theories (though it is convenient at dismissing your opponents in a debate, and letting people think your ad hominem attacks have weight) as by definition no more than one person need be involved at editing, though the camera crew would be involved with any stagings that were done. Besides, we aren't exactly wealthy, we most certainly don't have the financial backing of companies like Miramax or an existing multi-million dollar private fortune to bankroll a film from...

Start a petition or a fundraiser or whatever to raise awareness of it, so that the NRA can finally expose Moore in court for the fat liar that he really is.

We already have a collection of popular websites and we're getting a book...

We are aware of your viewpoints, know that there's a chance that Moore tricked us all; but now have the courtesy to accept the fact that you some of those accusations may be wrong or overblown just as easily. It's still speculation, not irrefutable fact - and repeating your speculations ad infinitum to us Disbelievers isn't going to make any of it closer to fact.

Yes, the whole point of real debate is being open to that possibility from the get go. One of you might be wrong, you both might be wrong, only reasoned discussion tends to iron out where everything is...

Some may be speculation (like, just what *is* missing, what does it do to the film? When we can show you what's missing, the picture gets pretty ugly, every time) but that something that is anti-documentarian is at work is factually provable. That biased sample cases are used to give weight to a shaky argument (used frequently to defend gun control...If I could have given Moore some advice before he started this thing, I guess I would have told him to be as careful as possible to deliberately isolate the two issues to keep his thesis more clearly in the spotlight) is not deniable, without outright intellectual dishonesty.

However, when someone shows you frame sequencing and explains the rules of Parallax, and you say it's conjecture, dismissing the whole thing, you aren't keeping an open mind, you're lying to yourself to a degree that can't be properly described. I tell you up is up and you say I'm just stating conjecture...

--Now before you say I have quoted you out of context, I'm merely responding point for point, and if you can show in any way that I've quoted you out of context or responded to an argument you didn't make, I'll rescind those arguments.