Fatass may lose his Oscar

[Joe]

People have analyzed "Bowling for Columbine".


Parts of it were cut, edited, and respliced to change things like sequence of events, or to put things in the wrong contexts.

Well whoop-de-fucking-doo. How many discovery channel documentaries accurately portray the life of the three-toed sloth in perfect pristine un-edited sequence without the "editorialising" of the narrator?

So they edited the fucking film and gave it a bit of a voice over... What a fucking crime. At no point do they outright lie about anything contained within it.

Saying that Charlton Heston gave an impassioned, aggressive speech after the Columbine massacres in Boulder is a flat-out.

Good documentarians do not fabricate shit.

[Joe]

Flat-out lie, excuse me.

[Shinova]

Well whoop-de-fucking-doo. How many discovery channel documentaries accurately portray the life of the three-toed sloth in perfect pristine un-edited sequence without the "editorialising" of the narrator?

So they edited the fucking film and gave it a bit of a voice over... What a fucking crime. At no point do they outright lie about anything contained within it.

Edited the film to take the original content out of context and use it to convey the creator's message.

There's that small bit where Moore says the Lockheed plant is making WMD rockets when they build satellites (was it satellites?). I don't know if you consider that a lie or simply farfetched speculation.

Anyway, Bowling for Columbine is hardly a true documentary. I think commentary would be a better word.

[MKSheppard]

At every point they outright lie about everything contained within it.

That wasn't so hard

[Nathan F]

People have analyzed "Bowling for Columbine".


Parts of it were cut, edited, and respliced to change things like sequence of events, or to put things in the wrong contexts.

And here's the link to the info:

http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

Hmm, I had forgoten about the Missile deal. And that is a flat out lie...

Well, I retract my comment about not having flat out lies, as they apparently are there.

[Joe]

I'm sick of this shit. How about a moratorium on all Michael Moore/BFC threads? This is just the same old bullshit all over again. It doesn't go anywhere.

[Darth Wong]

Saying that Charlton Heston gave an impassioned, aggressive speech after the Columbine massacres in Boulder is a flat-out [lie].

Good documentarians do not fabricate shit.

I was told that the film never explicitly stated that the speech was in response to the Columbine massacres. Are you saying that it did?

[Sea Skimmer]

There's that small bit where Moore says the Lockheed plant is making WMD rockets when they build satellites (was it satellites?). I don't know if you consider that a lie or simply farfetched speculation.

The plant in question builds booster rockets for satellite launches.

[MKSheppard]

I was told that the film explicitly stated that the speech was in response to the Columbine massacres.

I love Michael Moore Editing Ethics

[Nathan F]

Hmm... I suggest we all actually get the movie and watch it...

I am feeling kind of hypocritical because I haven't seen it, yet am using arguments that are rehashes of things I have read...

[Darth Wong]

Hmm, I had forgoten about the Missile deal. And that is a flat out lie...

It also has very little do to do with the main thrust of the documentary (assuming the facts are not being distorted in this "attack article"), which is supposedly about America's violent culture. Besides, if Saddam Hussein had missiles with such capacity, Bush would have called them potential weapons of mass destruction too. I suppose it would have been OK in that case?

[Joe]

Saying that Charlton Heston gave an impassioned, aggressive speech after the Columbine massacres in Boulder is a flat-out [lie].

Good documentarians do not fabricate shit.

I was told that the film never explicitly stated that the speech was in response to the Columbine massacres. Are you saying that it did?

Oh come on; it just happened to place the speech right where it needed to be for Moore to get his point across. You know exactly what he was trying to do.

[Darth Wong]

I was told that the film explicitly stated that the speech was in response to the Columbine massacres.

I love Michael Moore Editing Ethics

Unless you can show that the passages were altered to make them say the exact opposite of what they intended to say, this analogy of yours is just more right-wingnut bullshit.

[Darth Wong]

Saying that Charlton Heston gave an impassioned, aggressive speech after the Columbine massacres in Boulder is a flat-out [lie].

Good documentarians do not fabricate shit.

I was told that the film never explicitly stated that the speech was in response to the Columbine massacres. Are you saying that it did?

Oh come on; it just happened to place the speech right where it needed to be for Moore to get his point across. You know exactly what he was trying to do.

In other words, no. So you were lying about this scene being an outright lie, when you were actually talking about misleading innuendo, PRECISELY as I predicted. Concession accepted.

[MKSheppard]

Unless you can show that the passages were altered to make them say the exact opposite of what they intended to say, this analogy of yours is just more right-wingnut bullshit.

Want me to continue selectively editing your words and splicing them
together like fatass does? It's fucking annoying, isn't it?

[Joe]

That's a technicality. He might as well have just come out and said that Heston made the speech in question right after the Columbine massacres.

[Nathan F]

Hmm, I had forgoten about the Missile deal. And that is a flat out lie...

It also has very little do to do with the main thrust of the documentary (assuming the facts are not being distorted in this "attack article"), which is supposedly about America's violent culture. Besides, if Saddam Hussein had missiles with such capacity, Bush would have called them potential weapons of mass destruction too. I suppose it would have been OK in that case?

I find a bit of a difference between commercial space rockets that are sold internationally and ICBM capable rockets in Saddam's arsenal...

But, that still means that he DID put a lie into his film, and whether or not it goes into the main part of the documentary (And I think it does, as it is attacking the commercial rocket industry, saying they are making WMDs when they aren't, and using that as a reason for the 'social problems' of this town), it is still a blatant lie. And, that is grounds for the revocation of his Oscar, iirc.

[Darth Wong]

Unless you can show that the passages were altered to make them say the exact opposite of what they intended to say, this analogy of yours is just more right-wingnut bullshit.

Want me to continue selectively editing your words and splicing them
together like fatass does? It's fucking annoying, isn't it?

In other words, you don't care to show that the editing completely inverted the meaning of the passages, hence your analogy is false, hence you quietly concede the point. Thank you.

[MKSheppard]

In other words, I quietly concede the point. Thank you.

Thank you

[Nathan F]

Unless you can show that the passages were altered to make them say the exact opposite of what they intended to say, this analogy of yours is just more right-wingnut bullshit.

Want me to continue selectively editing your words and splicing them
together like fatass does? It's fucking annoying, isn't it?

In other words, you don't care to show that the editing completely inverted the meaning of the passages, hence your analogy is false, hence you quietly concede the point. Thank you.

Huh? I think he is saying that it is wrong to edit quotes around and construe them to look like the author is saying something he isn't saying. He is making a point, IMHO.

[Darth Wong]

I find a bit of a difference between commercial space rockets that are sold internationally and ICBM capable rockets in Saddam's arsenal...

But, that still means that he DID put a lie into his film, and whether or not it goes into the main part of the documentary (And I think it does, as it is attacking the commercial rocket industry, saying they are making WMDs when they aren't, and using that as a reason for the 'social problems' of this town), it is still a blatant lie. And, that is grounds for the revocation of his Oscar, iirc.

Either that, or it is a careless error, and failure to achieve perfection is not grounds for revocation of an Oscar. One must show that the errors in a documentary are so monumental or ubiquitous that they destroy its point, and what I'm seeing are nitpicks, style over substance attacks, etc.

[Darth Wong]

Huh? I think he is saying that it is wrong to edit quotes around and construe them to look like the author is saying something he isn't saying. He is making a point, IMHO.

No he isn't, because he must show that the edits in question DO SUBSTANTIVELY CHANGE THE MEANING OF THE QUOTE, rather than simply assuming it and then being a smart-ass about his application of the analogy. In the case of the quote he took, he completely inverted the meaning of the sentence, yet when challenged to prove that Moore did the same thing, he simply decided to be a smart-ass and ignore the challenge. So did you.

[Nathan F]

I find a bit of a difference between commercial space rockets that are sold internationally and ICBM capable rockets in Saddam's arsenal...

But, that still means that he DID put a lie into his film, and whether or not it goes into the main part of the documentary (And I think it does, as it is attacking the commercial rocket industry, saying they are making WMDs when they aren't, and using that as a reason for the 'social problems' of this town), it is still a blatant lie. And, that is grounds for the revocation of his Oscar, iirc.

Either that, or it is a careless error, and failure to achieve perfection is not grounds for revocation of an Oscar. One must show that the errors in a documentary are so monumental or ubiquitous that they destroy its point, and what I'm seeing are nitpicks, style over substance attacks, etc.

I don't see it as that, seeing as how he is using it as a basis for one of his arguments. That alone renders the rest of the debates made on that invalid. Once you knock the cornerstone of something out, the rest cannot stand.

[Darth Wong]

I don't see it as that, seeing as how he is using it as a basis for one of his arguments. That alone renders the rest of the debates made on that invalid. Once you knock the cornerstone of something out, the rest cannot stand.

So you are saying that his entire argument rests on this point? That's fucking moronic bullshit and you know it. Please look up the definition of "nitpick".

[Darth Wong]

In other words, I quietly concede the point. Thank you.

Thank you

Shep, if you keep doing that, I will start editing and deleting your posts en masse, and that is not an empty threat, asshole.