Disney Forbidding Distribution of Film That Criticizes Bush

[Memnoch]

Listen fellas, I'm not prepared to debate who's right and who's wrong - we're talking about opinions here. Like Hiero, I'm actually quite confused as to how we moved from the topic at hand to debating people's posting styles and other semantics. I think you both need to just chill out and take Aaron's words to heart - this is just a message forum. We're all sharing opinions, not enforcing them on each other. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Chewbacca]

It' okay Cerek. [img]smile.gif[/img]


We got pretty deep into the subject of MM's works and the various perspectives of it. It can be quite easy to slip from an objective footing when an attack is percieved.

Anyway- I do repsect your opinions and contributions to the forum and I also apologize for my part in allowing the discussion escelate into the twilight zone.

I also apologize again if it seemed I was out to attack you personally. I may take 'issue' with your opinions, but I do not take 'issue' with you at all nor do I think less of you even if your opinions are quite the opposite of mine.

I can see how I may have came on quite strong while discussing of your opinions and what a fine line it can be between discussing a point versus discussing a person.

I do hope you decide not to let this thread push you away from contributing in the forum, unless you truly think that is best for you. Like I said- I welcome your veiwpoints even as I may ( and do) expend energy to disagree with them!

It is always good to have a reminder that we are all quite equal in having opinions.

Once again- take care and many blessings,
Scott

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Memnoch: Listen fellas, I'm not prepared to debate who's right and who's wrong - we're talking about opinions here. Like Hiero, I'm actually quite confused as to how we moved from the topic at hand to debating people's posting styles and other semantics. I think you both need to just chill out and take Aaron's words to heart - this is just a message forum. We're all sharing opinions, not enforcing them on each other. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Thanks Memnoch. I'm chill and I get the sense that Cerek is chilling too!

Besides-I think we merely swung our handbags around our heads abit a bit, rather than actually using them offensivley. No harm done and misunderstandings can happen when a discussion is comprised of two strongly held, yet "opposing" opinions.

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: It' okay Cerek. [img]smile.gif[/img] We got pretty deep into the subject of MM's works and the various perspectives of it. It can be quite easy to slip from an objective footing when an attack is percieved. Anyway- I do repsect your opinions and contributions to the forum and I also apologize for my part in allowing the discussion escelate into the twilight zone. I also apologize again if it seemed I was out to attack you personally. I may take 'issue' with your opinions, but I do not take 'issue' with you at all nor do I think less of you even if your opinions are quite the opposite of mine. I can see how I may have came on quite strong while discussing of your opinions and what a fine line it can be between discussing a point versus discussing a person. I do hope you decide not to let this thread push you away from contributing in the forum, unless you truly think that is best for you. Like I said- I welcome your veiwpoints even as I may ( and do) expend energy to disagree with them! It is always good to have a reminder that we are all quite equal in having opinions. Once again- take care and many blessings, Scott

Chewbacca - I am humbled by your words. Thank you so much for your comments, they sincerely mean more to me than you can know.

I want to apologize again for my own posts - especially the last one - it was very petty of me to do that and extremely "out of character" from my normal posting style. I do tend to get too worked up over some of the issues here and that is why I took some time off for the past several weeks. I realized I was taking things too personally here. I've also had some r/l issues that have frustrated me recently and I'm afraid I decided to vent some of my frustrations through my posts here. The r/l issues are nothing serious, just a series of little things that had built up.

Also, I simply cannot be "objective" when it comes to Michael Moore. I wasn't being facetious when I said you probably like Rush Limbaugh more than I do Moore. However, I do have to admit that your posts have caused me to reconsider my attitude. I realize my intense dislike for the man isn't completely reasonable, so I may actually give BFC a look and see for myself what Moore has to say on the subject.

One thing I had sworn I would NOT do is be one of the members that say "I'm leaving this forum!" only to come back a few posts later and say "OK, THIS is my last post here." "No, No, THIS time I REALLY mean it." etc etc. So I was very serious when I said I was going to leave, however, you have managed to make me re-think that attitude also. I do enjoy contributing here and I was very flattered with your comments about respecting my contributions. Again, that means more to me than I can fully express.

So I will stick around and post from time to time. But I realize how quickly I can cross that fine line you mentioned between debating the issue and attacking a posting style, so I will choose the subjects I contribute to carefully.

Thank you again, Chewbacca, for your graciousness. I is deeply appreciated.

[Memnoch]

No worries guys - just don't take yourselves too seriously, is what I'm saying. That way you're less likely to take offence. I don't mind a bit of passion and vigour in debate, but just know when to take a step back and realise that these are just words. If we were in a pub debating this body language would give you these clues, but online we need to rely on our judgment and self-control. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 05-12-2004, 05:56 AM: Message edited by: Memnoch ]

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Thanks for the reminder, Memnoch. That was why I had to "step back" and leave the forum for a bit.

Since I helped derail the thread, I suppose I should also try to actually get it back On Topic.


When I said earlier that it was impossible to tell when Moore is telling the truth regarding the facts he uses, I was talking about the subtle things like the Denver convention or the statement that his latest film was funded by 6 million dollars of "Disney money". Technically, both of these statements are true (although the Disney statement is an obvious misrepresentation). But the part that worries me about Moore are issues like the Denver convention. Had I not read rebuttals to BFC before-hand, I wouldn't have realized the conventions are booked so far in advance and it would have made Moore's position appear much stronger. That is the type of subtle deception I'm talking about when I say he manipulates the truth.

To re-iterate my earlier agreement, he could have said "Well, OK, it would have been impossible to re-schedule the event on such short notice, but they COULD have changed the agenda of the convention to address the tragedy or just cancelled it altogether. That would have made his point just as strongly without the omission of any relevant tidbits.

And I do agree with Chewbacca that it was egregious error for the Denver convention to NOT address the Columbine tragedy. After all, this was just a few short weeks after one the largest American tragedies in recent history. We are still talking about the event (and looking for answers as to why it happened) years later. For the NRA to just turn a "blind eye" to the event right after it happened was extremely negligent.

[Davros]

Well said on that last answer Cerek. I feel The failure of that conference to adress the tragedy was a bigger sin than the simple holding of the convention in the first place. I do feel however that the argument that it was already booked well in advance should not preclude the acceptable appreciation by the NRA of local events (both temporal and spatial) like the Columbine tragedy.

You have to wonder did the holding of the gun rally at that time really shift people to support their cause (let's face it, they were never going to lose any diehard's), or did it do harm by getting people's feckles up. How much more appreciative would the local population have been in the NRA had come out and made a statement deploring the violence, adding that it promotes and condones the use and not the misuse of firearms, and that despite considerable expense they would postpone their planned conference for 6 months as a show of respect.

You win more battles with sugar than you do with stones.

On the topic ofthis new movie - I weren't all that enthusiastic, but now I want to see the product that is making all the fuss [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Night Stalker]

It wasn't just a simple fact that the member's meeting was scheduled five years in advance. As a Non-Profit Organization incorporated in New York, they are required to hold annual member's meetings ... the equivelent of stock holder's meetings for C Corps. If the member's meeting cannot be held at the scheduled time a NonProfit in New York is required by law to inform the entire constituancy of the change no later than 10 prior to the meeting. The Columbine tragedy happened 11 days prior. There was no time to rechedule an event of that magnitude in less than 24 hours and still notify everyone. Oh, it also happened near the end of their fiscal year too, so they didn't have any leeway on that front either (Corporations under US law may define their tax year to be other than the standart calendar year).

Mr Moore mentions none of this, and tries to mislead the viewer into thinking that the NRA had a Flash Rally just for the Columbine tragedy. Though the NRA did miss an opportunity to address the issue responsibly.

[John D Harris]

Disney bought and paid for the movie it is Disney's to do with as they wish, Nobody in the U.S.A. or anywhere in this world can complain, unless of course YOU wish to give ME control over anything YOU HAVE bought and paid for. I doubt that you would be willing to do that, yet it seems that the liberals are the ones belly-aching about this, while THEY THEMSELVES would not alow others to have the same control over things that are under their(the Liberals) control. This is a perfect example of why I can't be a liberal.

[Timber Loftis]

Back to that Denver conference, if memory serves me correctly, the majority of the scheduled events were cancelled. Also, it is my understanding that the "truth" presented by Moore was actually a splicing together of footage from two separate conferences in 2 separate years.