Disney Forbidding Distribution of Film That Criticizes Bush Pt II

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Davros: quote: Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: As to the point that Hardy had an "agenda" to discredit Moore's film because he is an NRA member....that may be true.

I also hear that GW Bush may be President, Saddam Hussien may be captured, Greece may have won the European Championships, and we may not have found any WOMD in Iraq. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Still three weeks to go till I get to see the movie - I may be looking forward to it. [/QUOTE]Also, Moore may have had a political agenda with BfC and F9/11. Moore also may have had more incentive to lie and decieve regarding the integrity of his films than Hardy does. Moore may have misrepresented Disney when he claimed they were refusing to distribute F9/11 at the last minute (when he had - in fact - known that was the case for an entire year). Which means that Moore may have actually - {gasp} - lied!!! [img]graemlins/wow.gif[/img]

Even some who are considered fans of Michael Moore (such as acclaimed film critic Roger Ebert) may have corroborated the accusations of deception and misleading editing in BfC and may also have confirmed that he and others were told NOT to say the Academy Award crowd was divided over Moore's speech.

Um...let's see....Moore may have taken several statements by Charlton Heston out of context in his Denver NRA speech and put them together to give an entirely different tone to his words and statements.

etc etc etc

It's a fun game, Davros, but all this spinning and circular arguing is making me dizzy. LOL. [img]graemlins/laugh2.gif[/img]

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: I'm good for at least one more post on this topic. [img]smile.gif[/img] quote: Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: Hardy did an excellent job at showing exaclty how Moore used the "smoke and mirrors" effect in BfC. He also provided links and sources to back up his claims against the film. In the "controversial" speech by Heston at Denver, he gave a side-by-side comparison of the transcript from the film compared to the transcript of the actual speech. It shows - without any opinion or conjecture - how Moore deliberately took some sentences far out of context and even spliced two separate sentences together to make a completely different statement.

The blue part is conjecture- and heads towards the opinion from Hardy that Moore's editing and use of excerpts were designed to be misleading. This is pure conjecture because intent to decieve cannot be factually proven. The fact of the matter is Moore used excerpts from a speech. That is parts of the speech to make a specific point. Leaving out parts of the speech are hardly damning. The is the whole point of excerpts is to show parts.[/QUOTE]The splicing of two sentences to create a new one is not conjecture. Michael Moore either spliced the sentences together as Hardy claims or he did not - there is no guesswork. Follow the link and look at the transcript Hardy claims comes from the movie. You saw the movie, so tell us if the movie transcript is accurate or not. IF the movie transcript is accurate, then look at the transcript provided of the actual speech made by Heston. If the supposed "spliced statement" is in the movie transcript, but NOT in the original transcript, then Moore did splice the statements as Hardy claims. It should be easy enough to find, because Hardy even gives the two sentences that were spliced.

As for taking "excerpts" from a speech - one sentence from a paragraph hardly qualifies as being presented in context...and even excerpts should be presented in the proper context - unless the intent IS to decieve.

One of the prime examples of this "excerpt editing" is when the mayor asks the NRA to cancel their meeting and not come to Denver, to which Heston supposedly replies "You ask us not to come here, we're already here!!!" The implication give by Moore (or at least those criticising the film) is that Heston is defiantly denying the mayor's request. However, the actual context of that statement was to point out that many citizens of Denver belong to the NRA - so the NRA is already in Denver. Heston followed this statement by saying "We are already here. We are the firemen and police and other citizens of Denver and we are here to help shoulder the burden of grief over this tragedy" (or words to that effect - the link gives the exact text of his statement). To take only the first part of the statement and leave off the following statements definitely seems like an intent to present a false representation of the NRA members in general and Charlten Heston in particular.

But I realize no amount of evidence will be convincing and there is no point in presenting the same circular arguments anymore.

Both sides have been exhaustively represented and it is up to each individual member to judge Moore and his films on their own criteria.

One final note. F9/11 remained in second place this week behind Spiderman 2 and took in a respectable $21 million. It is currently on pace to become the first "documentary" to ever make more than $100 million dollars!!! I may not care for Moore or his films, but I will give credit to him for a job well done. [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Davros: Sorry JD - you weren't with me - I will clarify for you - "NO LINKS" is my read on things. A couple of contacts do not constitute the links that some people in theAdmin want us all to believe. Hale, Rummy had contact - does that make him complicit?

No kidding I wasn't with you there, it went by me, left me standing there holding my jock strap. "DUH, DUH, DUHHA which way did he go, which way did he go."

That goes to what the diffintion of links is, if you don't define contacts started by Iraqi Intel with the purpose of working together and cooperating as links, then your assisment(sp?) is correct. If you define that as links, then the 9/11 commision is correct in that they stated there were no links on the attacks of 9/11/2001. Is complicancy(sp?) required for links, I would say no, but that is for each of us to call for ourselves.

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Grojlach: On a related subject... I'm currently reading Stupid White Men, and once you get used to Moore's writing style and look past the obvious bias, he's got some interesting things to say. However, for fairness' sake, I'll let the anti-Moore people here choose one particular site with rebuttals to the things Moore describes in his novel, and I'll promise to read them - or at least attempt to. So, anyone?

I've heard alot about www.moorelies.com , but I have to admit, I haven't visited it yet. You could always pick up a copy of "Michael Moore Is A Big Fat Stupid White Guy" because I'm pretty sure that book is a direct rebutal.

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: I never once stated that obfuscating facts and general mud-slinging were non-issues. As for telling one-side of a story, well duh- thats the whole point of doing opinion work. A news organization reporting the news has different standards than an opinion writer in my opinion. The problem is that Moore's opinion is being presented as fact. Based on what you're saying, you should be the first to stand up and point out the problem with that. An apples and oranges comparison. Apparently the apples and oranges analogy relies heavily on which side of the fruit stand your working from. [img]smile.gif[/img] Oh and here is what I described as a non-issue so the proper context can be assertained by the vewing public- Curious, I have read the critism's of the Denver speech scene in BFC, I have read Moore's rebuttal to the critism. I watched the movie again. I dont feel mislead. Its seems to me that your accusations of Moore being a liar about that scene is but an opinion, not a fact. True two different peices of rally footage were used, one after the other. One, a stock piece shown during an introductory narration, the next peice intertwined with citizens protesting outside that gun rally. I'm still not feeling mislead. Two different peices of footage used one after the other for different reasons. My opinion-NON-ISSUE! So what if they scaled down thier meeting, they still had one. So what if was planned in advanced or required by law in another state. I fail to see how ommitting this in the film constitutes deception. Another NON-ISSUE. So editing the film is a non-issue. No malicious intent can be proven. If editing the first three words of one sentance with the remainder of another sentance given at another convention isn't an issue, then you just don't want to see one. Omitting the NRA's meeting was planned way in advance and was required by law- another non-issue as this ommission doesnt constitue deception and I am unsure if it even qualifies as confusing the facts. The status of the NRA's meeting is just not mentioned. Perhaps an NRA spokeperson should have made statement to the crowd of protestors gathered in front of the meeting and explained these nuances...

If someone from the NRA did explain the nuances to the crowd, Moore wouldn't have shown it, unless he could make the representative look bad.

The ommission doesn't constitute deception? Are you kidding? Moore made it appear the the NRA continued with business as usual, and that they made no concessions. They were required by LAW to hold the other meeting. This must be another one of those apples and oranges issues. You know, the one that allows acceptions to or the complete ignoring of facts based on whether you agree with the apple or the orange.

[Chewbacca]

...The problem is that Moore's opinion is being presented as fact....

How exactly? Or is this your opinion?

If editing the first three words of one sentance with the remainder of another sentance given at another convention isn't an issue, then you just don't want to see one.

This is not the case. Twist how the film is actually presented if you will, but don't expect to score any points this way with me.

The ommission doesn't constitute deception? Are you kidding? Moore made it appear the the NRA continued with business as usual, and that they made no concessions.

If you have every right to the opinion that Moore made it appear this way and you have every right to have the opinion that this is deceptive. I did not get that impression.

I got the impression, that regardless of circumstances, the NRA did indeed have a meeting in Denver soon after Columbine and that the Mayor asked them not to and that people protested the meeting and that Charlton Heston used a speech at that meeting to repeatedly berate the Mayor for asking the group not too have the meeting so soon after the tragedy. I did not and still do not feel decieved in any way with regards to this part of the movie.

You know, the one that allows acceptions to or the complete ignoring of facts based on whether you agree with the apple or the orange.

Piercing your subtly here- I have neither accepted nor ignored facts out of simple prejudice either way. It is an error to assume that I am totally sympathetic to Moore and uniformily agree with his opinions and political perspectives. It is also an error to assume that if this were the case- I would overlook dishonesty, lies, and deception. These implications are clearly and plainly wrong, and you seem to, predictably, attack what you imagine as the motives of the poster rather than the topic at hand. Considering this and the aformentioned nature of this discussion becoming a circular rehash of opinions, I will probably refrain from responding to your inevitable reply.

Good Day,

[Oblivion437]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: I'm good for at least one more post on this topic. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Your participation is always appreciated.

[b]The blue part is conjecture- and heads towards the opinion from Hardy that Moore's editing and use of excerpts were designed to be misleading. This is pure conjecture because intent to decieve cannot be factually proven.

Well, let's put it this way, it doesn't break the Camel's back, but it does give him a case of scoliosis, and if Heston didn't qualify as a public figure, what he did to his speech is, without a doubt legally actionable.

The fact of the matter is Moore used excerpts from a speech. That is parts of the speech to make a specific point. Leaving out parts of the speech are hardly damning. The is the whole point of excerpts is to show parts.

Read Hardy's transcript of that whole area of the speech from which Moore draws, and then read what Moore presented in total. Taken side by side, it is obvious one goes in the opposite direction of the other. Yellow journalists have been doing it for a hundred years.

"Did you murder that man?"
"No."
"Are you absolutely sure of your innocence?"
"Yes."

How we read it in the paper:
Our reporter asked him, "Did you murder that man?" and he went on to say, "yes."

Note, the reporter is not lying, and the newspaper is not lying. He did in fact ask him that exact question, as printed, and the man did in fact go on to say yes, as printed. What you're not getting is that he went on to say yes in response to something else. In the whole context of what Heston said, he isn't at all a fire-eating and antagonistic bastard, as presented in Moore's version of the events. It's not conjecture to say that such a precise and deliberate edit job (this kind of editing is frame-by-frame, not by reel) intentionally changes the nature of the speech, as given.

As for the claim that two different sentences were spliced together to make a different statement- more conjecture.

Except, two sentences are drawn from for the edit, their original meaning thus lost, and glued together, they have a reversal effect in context with Moore's version of the speech.

A few different excerpts were used. The opening narrative of the scnene even had a clip from a totally different speech. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

It could be reasonable to say that one could be led to assume that what was said all from the Denver speech, as Moore makes no mention of the NC speech a year later... Conjecture it may be, but solid conjecture, solid enough to put someone on the receiving end of a lawsuit it is...

IIRC the scene in question switched around alot from excerpts of Heston's speech to scenes of demonstrators outside and other bits. It is pure conjecture that this part of the film and the use of excerpts from Heston's speech is done as part of a design to mislead.

Conjecture it may be, it may not be supported by something Moore said, but if you hadn't read Hardy's transcript, and known the facts, you'd think it was something it wasn't, wouldn't you? Or do you think Heston did rush to Denver to hold a rally in response to Columbine and in turn made an inflammatory speech? The whole scene amounts to a Strawman, Moore saying what he did, reacting to something that didn't happen. I don't trumpet logical fallacy as the basis of an argument, unless I'm not really arguing.

In general Hardy's work is great for people who may already have negative pre-concieved notions about Moore and BFC. It is also great for these people who have also not even seen the film.

But I saw the film first, I saw the telecast of the NRA speech when it first aired back in 1999 (I watched TV news a lot more back then) and I knew something was up. I remembered thinking back in '99, "what a diplomat," and this was before I knew about the NRA or had any opinions specified about gun control.

Hardy's excessive use conjecture in a similiar fashion through-out his critisms makes taking him on in a point by point fashion a waste of time for me and dilutes any factual mistakes that are presented.

You don't seem to know enough about editing or the history of Yellow Journalism to understand how this doesn't register as conjecture by definition.

He isn't using conjecture here, you failed to properly establish that point, and if you're going to use the genetic fallacy to defend denouncing Hardy, the least you can do is point out how you come to the conclusion that Parts a, b and c have the given properties to let you assume that taken together, forming object d, object d has the properties of those things...

Even some of these factual mistakes seem born more out of an ignorance or misunderstanding of Moore's satire and a mischaracterization of when Moore is making an opinion. This point it seems can apply to Ebert in his critism of the film as well.

Except that Moore's satire utilizes biased samples, strawmen, false analogies and ad hominem attacks to lend the real argument. Opinion is one thing, but when you use a fact to give that opinion weight, you'd better be sure you're not using it wrong, or not using biased samples to suit that opinion. This is what Hardy points out...

Take out the conjecture, the misunderstanding of satire, and the mischaracterization of Moore's opinions and what is left?

A thorough and accurate article supported by the 5 ton elephant of facts, that says Moore is a liar. Though I will give you points for actually reading Hardy's article, most of his critics don't even put up that much effort, unlike Moore's critics, who actually watch his films and read his books in advance.

One last point- Cliaming that Moore's rebuttal is designed to specifically counter Hardy's critisms is quite misleading.

Strawman... The criticisms are now well-circulated, and Moore admitted knowing about the site in an interview. He knows it's there, but he hasn't responded to all of it, just what he could without us knowing The Awful Truth(TM)

Moore doesnt name specifically any sources that his rebuttal is aimed towards. His response is evidently meant to be quite general and touches upon some key points.

That's conjecture...

He did sort of name somebody, some random guy who apparently writes for a gun magazine (and that's apparently significant enough to totally debase his opinion) who gave an interview on some news show or...something...

Also, he did mention (and implicitly concede to the truth of) a criticism that appeared in two places: Spinsanity.org and hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html... Just where I can't pin exactly (I don't know how to mark for specific spots on a page, and I don't feel like searching for the articles on Spinsanity right now) and in both cases, they appeared in context with other criticisms, and he didn't answer those. Are you saying Moore suffers from some sort of selective blindness?

This appears to be a mis-characterization of Moore's response as it makes it out to seem like Moore was responding directly and specifically to Hardy's critiques and opinions when this is not the case.

Conjecture...

Hardy is not mention once in Moore's response to the wacko attacks on BFC.

Neither is spinsanity, which is where the critique of the Willie Horton ad comes from... That Hardy isn't mentioned is barely relevant. Unless Moore read it off Hardy's page...

The fact that Moore's response is quite a general one is made clear by this part: quote: So, a whole host of gun lobby groups and individual gun nuts have put up websites where the smears on me range from the pre-adolescent (I'm a "crapweasel," and a "fat f-ing piece of shit") to Orwellian-style venom ("Michael Moore hates America!").

Anyway, it was fun, but I still feel like I am repeating myself and making points made like three threads back on the BFC topic. Hardy's case vs BFC is too lite on fact/heavy on conjecture to be worth tackling point by point. Anyone interested can click the links and decide for themselves.[/QUOTE]Except, he doesn't name one source for his criticisms, and what's more, the most serious criticism he responded to (the Horton ad) he strawmanned, but in the process admitted that he did something very wrong. You say he's heavy on conjecture, but until you crawl into the field and sort out the mess, you're still just a kettle calling a pot black.

I would rather discuss F 9/11. It seems once the few 'Moore lies in F-9/11' claims were deflated,

Not really, it didn't seem like anyone had anything better than to bitch about the fact that certain people hadn't seen the movie, rather than actually answer on the points made...

no one wanted to discuss it anymore.

I'm still open to discussing it, but I want to see it first, which is going to be a long time away...

On this point it turns out that Unocal has denied that Harmid Karzia (Afgan president) was ever a consultant for them. I am still looking into this as it is one factual assertion made as fact in the film ( and in varous media sources before the film) that is yet to be conclusively proven either way.

Moore's the prosecution, he's the one who's supposed to do the damning proof of guilt.

Moore stated on his site that a fact sheet for F-9/11 will be made available soon so we can see sources and such for ourselves.

Will he cite similarly unfindable and unverifiable cites as he did for his defense of BfC?

On this note, I have for you this: http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fift...enheit-911.htm

I lifted the yellow journalism bit from that, and it's not an attempt to flush the film down the toilet in whole, but to point out the glaring errors of the film. Do with it what you will.

[ 07-06-2004, 05:42 PM: Message edited by: Oblivion437 ]

[Ronn_Bman]

My inevitable response? You make it seem so ominous. You know Chewie, you are becoming increasingly delicate.

I notice that you have no trouble discussing the debater yourself. Can we here, in this forum, even discuss anything anymore without offending one another, or feeling the need to jump to someone else's defense because we think they've been offended regardless of their position on the issue.

What is this forum coming to?

If someone takes issue with a stance you support, why must you act as if they are personally attacking you, or they are ignoring the issue, or they are (fill in the blank), etc... I'm not picking on you or attacking you, I'm pointing out inconsistencies in your argument. You may not think they are inconsistencies, but if I do I'm entitled to state why, and I have done so in a reasonable manner. Nothing more, nothing less. Aren't we here to discuss these things? If we aren't, what the heck is the purpose of even typing anything here?

We are discussing Michael Moore's film, and if your argument doesn't make sense to me I point out why to further the debate, and when you ignore or dismiss the issues I bring up, then I say something about your doing so. We've done things this way all along, so why the sudden sensitivity.

This forum has been a great informational source to me over the last couple of years, and I feel it has broadened my horizons. In fact, the only reason I went to see Moore's Propaganda Film was so that I could discuss it here based on my first person opinion. And discuss it here I will, within the limits of the forum.

Finally, on an unrelated subject, isn't it funny how 'Good Day' can read a whole lot like 'Kiss My A**" when handled correctly? [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Ronn_Bman: My inevitable response? You make it seem so ominous. You know Chewie, you are becoming increasingly delicate.

Thanks, just call me the delicate wookie.

I notice that you have no trouble discussing the debater yourself.

Sure, in the right context. For example when someone implies the motives of a poster and ignores the posters points. I point it out, just like I did with you.

Can we here, in this forum, even discuss anything anymore without offending one another, or feeling the need to jump to someone else's defense because we think they've been offended regardless of their position on the issue. What is this forum coming to? If someone takes issue with a stance you support, why must you act as if they are personally attacking you, or they are ignoring the issue, or they are (fill in the blank), etc...

Wrong. I don't. You mischaracterize my intent behind the topic mentioned and make it seem like if you disagree with an opinion of mine I jump to accusations.

We are discussing Michael Moore's film, and if your argument doesn't make sense to me I point out why to further the debate, and when you ignore or dismiss the issues I bring up, then I say something about your doing so. We've done things this way all along, so why the sudden sensitivity.

Wrong again. I have not ignored the issues you brought up. You have ignored the issues and instead speculated upon my motives. I called you on it.

Finally, on an unrelated subject, isn't it funny how 'Good Day' can read a whole lot like 'Kiss My A**" when handled correctly? [img]smile.gif[/img]

Riiiight.

[Ronn_Bman]

You've got me figured out Chewie, I'm out to get you. I can't debate the subjects, so I just pick on you.

Weird though how you admit you do debate the debater when you think it is 'in the right context', so do the rest of us need to get your thoughts on when it is or isn't appropriate?

What motive am I ascribing to you by the way? I think you are wrong to ignore the inconsistances in Moore work, and especially wrong to say things are none issues, but exactly what reasoning am I using? Do I think you're out to bring the empire down, or you want to rule the world?

You called me on it? Called me on what?

You say those things aren't an issue, and I say they are. How is that debating you personally, other than my thinking you are wrong? What is so personal about my saying that I believe those things ARE issues?

This post was about you, but only because you insisted.