After finally seeing "Bowling for Columbine" ...

[Death from the Sea]

I do find it pretty hypocritical of Moore to come out blaming the Media for the "culture of fear", yet in one of the first bits of his mockumentry he does essentially the same thing that he accuses the media of with the bank that gives away a free gun for opening an account. He asks "Do you think it's a little bit dangerous handing out guns at a bank?". Um, well you apperently just passed the FBI's background check and gave the bank a couple thousand dollars and have been sitting around on camera for half the day, before receiving and unloaded rifle. If anyone was to attempt to rob the bank that way it would almost be the worst way imaginable to do so.

[Nathan F]

Mike, I agree 100% with Shep in that you are being hypocritical as hell when it comes to this. You nitpick STvSW arguments all the time, especially concerning the stuff DarkStar says, and now we pick apart the lies propogated in this movie, and you start in on us for being nitpickers.

[MKSheppard]

If the latter, more evidence for Kynes == Boyd (Jon was a rather avid Mac fanatic.)

Which makes me wonder - is this some giant twisted game that he's playing
on us for his Ph.D in psychology?

[Darth Wong]

You've repeated the allegation that he thumbed his nose at the people of Columbine Mike, but you have yet to point out how he did this.

They didn't want him there. He did not apologize for the unfortunate timing at all. Duh.

In fact, the NRA and Heston apparently tried not to do so. While it is true that they held a meeting in Denver ten days after the tragedy, the meeting had been scheduled to take place long before the Columbine tragedy, and it was an annual members' meeting that could not be cancelled because corporate law required that it be held. There was no way to change the venue on sudh short notice, since that would have required notifying upwards of 4,000,000 members of the organization, and there was no way to know exactly how many, or which of the 4 million would be attending.

And it would have killed him to apologize for the unfortunate timing of the event?

Perhaps you mean Heston's speech. The one where he says: "I have a message from the Mayor, Mr. Wellington Webb, the Mayor of Denver. He sent me this; it says 'don't come here. We don't want you here.' I say to the Mayor this is our country, as Americans we're free to travel wherever we want in our broad land. Don't come here? We're already here!"

These sentences are clipped out of different parts of a speech and strung together to give a false impression of callous intent. When Heston uttered the words "Don't come here? We're already here!", he was simply referring to the previous three paragraphs, where he pointed out that thoudands of NRA members were already living in the area, and that there were probably NRA members among the police and fire and SWAT team personnel who responded to the scene of the Columbine shooting, so the the NRA was already there.

I've seen the transcript of the entire speech, and the meaning is the same. Of course they have members already live in Denver. So what? The point is the defiant tone; the manner in which Heston identifies hurt feelings and high emotions as an enemy to be resisted, rather than something deserving of sympathy. Do you even know what the word "nitpicking" means, for fuck's sake?

He also added an excerpt - the "I have only five words for you: 'from my cold, dead, hands'" quote, with a shot of Heston waving a musket over his head - which was culled from an entirely different speech given a year later in South Carolina,

Duh, he introduced Heston, at which point he showed a clip of what Heston was most famous for. Then, he cut to the speech ad Denver. Thanks for demonstrating the pathetic nitpicking crybaby bullshit for which NRA members have been publicly embarassing themselves ever since BFC came out.

and spliced it in there to make it appear again as though Heston was defiantly expressing contempt for the people of Columbine's sensibilities by grandstanding in the aftermath of an atrocity.

But he was; he could have easily said "we apologize for the unfortunate timing of this event, which we would have changed if we could", but instead, he said "we live in your community already, and we can hold our meeting here if we want to". That's public defiance whether you're honest enough to admit it or not.

This is dishonest as hell Mike, and you know it. It's inexcusable in a work that represents itself as a factual documentary.

Bullshit. It is nitpickery of the highest order.

[Darth Wong]

Why is it okay for Michael Moore to lie, and make up shit, but not for DarkStar to do so in a SWvsST debate?

Because he didn't lie or make up shit. People are nitpicking details which have nothing to do with the point.

Please, get back to me when you have a solid answer on that that doesn't
involve screaming outloud against "nitpickers" when you yourself nitpicked
DarkStar's bullshit arguments to hell and revealed him to be a lying SOB.

Because I didn't nitpick Darkstar's bullshit arguments; I found major lies which completely changed the main point. Do you even know what the word "nitpick" means?

[Darth Wong]

Mike, I agree 100% with Shep in that you are being hypocritical as hell when it comes to this. You nitpick STvSW arguments all the time, especially concerning the stuff DarkStar says, and now we pick apart the lies propogated in this movie, and you start in on us for being nitpickers.

Only a whiny crybaby dumb-fuck knee-jerk NRA apologist bullshtter would actually believe the word "nitpick" applies equally to picking gnatshit out of details which have nothing to do with the point being made, vs finding total lies which completely alter the main point.

Go buy a fucking brain.

[Glocksman]

This is thumbing your nose?

I also want to applaud your courage in coming here today. Or course, you have a right to be here. As you know, we've cancelled the festivities, the fellowship we normally enjoy at our annual gatherings. This decision has perplexed a few and inconvenienced thousands. As your president, I apologize for that.

But it's fitting and proper that we should do this. Because NRA members are, above all, Americans. That means that whatever our differences, we are respectful of one another and we stand united, especially in adversity.

So, we have the same right as all other citizens to be here. To help shoulder the grief and share our sorrow and to offer our respectful, reassured voice to the national discourse that has erupted around this tragedy.

As others have pointed out, the NRA was required by law to hold that meeting when they did. They cancelled all of the non required items on the agenda. Then knowing full well that the meeting cannot be legally cancelled, the Mayor of Denver tells them to stay away?


Why should the NRA apologize anyway? And apologize for what? For not hiring Miss Cleo to help schedule a meeting that was set up for a long time prior to Columbine?

To apologize would be seen in the eyes of many as an acknowlegement of some kind of responsibility for the shootings. The NRA was not responsible for Columbine and had nothing to apologize for. Heston did make note of the circumstances and did express sorrow. Moore's editing would have you believe that he said nothing of the sort and was being callous and uncaring.

Frankly, I'm offended that the Mayor was exploiting the tragedy in order to portray the NRA as villain. I'm even more offended both as an American and as an NRA member by that bullshit 'Brief History' cartoon.

Moore claims the writing credit, but it sounds more like Howard Zinn on LSD than anything else.


Heston sure was right about one thing though:

Those who are hostile towards us will lie in wait to seize on a soundbite out of context, ever searching for an embarrassing moment to ridicule us. So, let us be mindful. The eyes of the nation are upon us today.

[Perinquus]

They didn't want him there. He did not apologize for the unfortunate timing at all. Duh.

And it would have killed him to apologize for the unfortunate timing of the event?

This much I'll grant: it would have been better and more tactful for him to have made some statement to that effect. But the impression that Moore leaves the viewer with is that the NRA held the meeting in response to the Columbine massacre, which was not the case. This is dishonest, and I repeat, it is inexcusable in a work passing itself off as a factual documentary.

I've seen the transcript of the entire speech, and the meaning is the same. Of course they have members already live in Denver. So what? The point is the defiant tone; the manner in which Heston identifies hurt feelings and high emotions as an enemy to be resisted, rather than something deserving of sympathy. Do you even know what the word "nitpicking" means, for fuck's sake?

Yes, I know quite well what it means. I don't see it as a nitpick when the question of intent is concerned. Michael Moore makes it appear that Heston and the NRA trampled on the grief of the bereaved of Columbine deliberately, and that they apparently went out of their way to do it by coming to Colorado of all places, when the fact is the location of the meeting had already been set. By not presenting the viewer with that rather significant fact, Moore makes it look as though the NRA still came to Denver without there being any need for them to do so. And that being the case, the viewer is likely to conclude that they did this deliberately. While the worst that Heston seems guilty of is a lack of tact in his speech, the impression this gives to uninformed viewers is one of deliberate, in-your-face grandstanding. One reviewer even said as much (italics and boldface type added):

Where it seemed that Charlton Heston and others rushed to Littleton to hold rallies and demonstrations directly after the tragedy, Manson canceled the remainder of his tour immediately following Columbine, and did not return to Denver for two years following.

http://www.lfcnews.com/welcomecruelworld.htm

Moore deliberately created a false and misleading impression of Heston and the NRA's actions and intent.

Duh, he introduced Heston, at which point he showed a clip of what Heston was most famous for. Then, he cut to the speech ad Denver. Thanks for demonstrating the pathetic nitpicking crybaby bullshit for which NRA members have been publicly embarassing themselves ever since BFC came out.

Bullshit. Nitpicking my ass. Again it is about intent. Moore put that excerpt from another speech in there, and edited it in such a way as to make it appear to any viewer unacquainted with the actual facts that Heston made that "cold dead hands remark" in Denver a mere ten days after a horrible mass killing. Making such a remark at such a time could not help but be interpreted, by even the most insensitive asshole, as deliberately indifferent to the suffering of the people of Columbine.

This was not the case. At that speech Heston remarked:

"As you know, we've cancelled the festivities, the fellowship we normally enjoy at our annual gatherings. This decision has perplexed a few and inconvenienced thousands. As your president, I apologize for that.

But it's fitting and proper that we should do this. Because NRA members are, above all, Americans. That means that whatever our differences, we are respectful of one another and we stand united, especially in adversity."

He was aware that the people of Columbine were in grief for the slain, and that in light of that it would be inappropriate for the NRA to hold the normal celebrations and festivities that they hold at their annual meetings. But Michael Moore deliberately misleads the viewer into believing that Heston simply did not give a damn about the grief of the people of Columbine, and for the NRA it would be business as usual.

This is not a nitpick Mike. It is a selective presentation and editing of the facts in order to turn the viewers of "Bowling for Columbine" against Heston and the NRA by making them think, not that Heston is simply a little less tactful than he ought to have been, but rather that he and the organization he represented are heartless brutes who were aware of the grief of the people of Columbine, but could not have cared less about it. This is a deliberate misrepresentation of the facts and of Heston's intent for the purpose of evoking a desired reaction in the audience. That is not the hallmark of a factual documentary; it's a hallmark of propaganda. If you can't see that I just don't what to say. I, for one, think that the distinction between using the techniques of an unbiased, factual documentary and using the techniques of propaganda is a pretty big one - hardly a nitpick.

Bullshit. It is nitpickery of the highest order.

See above

[Nathan F]

Mike, I agree 100% with Shep in that you are being hypocritical as hell when it comes to this. You nitpick STvSW arguments all the time, especially concerning the stuff DarkStar says, and now we pick apart the lies propogated in this movie, and you start in on us for being nitpickers.

Only a whiny crybaby dumb-fuck knee-jerk NRA apologist bullshtter would actually believe the word "nitpick" applies equally to picking gnatshit out of details which have nothing to do with the point being made, vs finding total lies which completely alter the main point.

Go buy a fucking brain.

Heheh, I don't know why, but I found that reply to be somewhat funny...

Mike, He LIED in the movie. He blatantly made libelious remarks against a group of a few million people (namely the NRA, of which I AM a member of, thankyouvermuch). He used twisted quotes and obvious lies to further his point, and I think that makes him loose all credibility. And yes, when you pick apart someone's statements in something so trivial as a debate in STvSW and as to who would win which one, that is nitpicking. When you start picking apart someone's movie and being finding blatant lies, yes, that is nitpicking as well. So yes, they are, on a basic level, the same thing. Both nitpicking things apart and finding lies therein. I am sorry, but you cannot put down our nitpicking when you yourself have done the same thing, but on a different subject. I don't ridicule you for nitpicking DarkStar or any other STvSW subject, why should you ridicule me for nitpicking things apart in another movie?

(BTW, I already have a brain, and it works quite well.)

[Lord Poe]

[Darth Wong]

And it would have killed him to apologize for the unfortunate timing of the event?

This much I'll grant: it would have been better and more tactful for him to have made some statement to that effect. But the impression that Moore leaves the viewer with is that the NRA held the meeting in response to the Columbine massacre, which was not the case. This is dishonest, and I repeat, it is inexcusable in a work passing itself off as a factual documentary.

This is the crux of our disagreement, since I did not read that into the film at all. If you chose to do so, that is quite frankly your hypersensitivity showing through. The impression I got was that Heston unapologetically held the meeting despite the feelings of those who didn't want them there, not that Heston actually held the meetings in reaction to Columbine. No one has suggested that, Moore never said that, the film does not imply that, and the only "lie" relating to that claim is the fact that you're making it in the first place.

Bullshit. Nitpicking my ass. Again it is about intent. Moore put that excerpt from another speech in there, and edited it in such a way as to make it appear to any viewer unacquainted with the actual facts that Heston made that "cold dead hands remark" in Denver a mere ten days after a horrible mass killing.

Wrong. It is virtually standard operating procedure in documentaries to produce a "this is what he's most famous for" clip when you first introduce a character. There is no implication that the clip must have been taken at Denver, unless you simply never watch documentaries about famous people and are not aware of this common practice.

He was aware that the people of Columbine were in grief for the slain, and that in light of that it would be inappropriate for the NRA to hold the normal celebrations and festivities that they hold at their annual meetings.

Yes, and he apologized to his members for not holding the festivities, rather than apologizing to the families of Columbine for the unfortunate timing of the event. Rather revealing, is it not?

This is not a nitpick Mike. It is a selective presentation and editing of the facts in order to turn the viewers of "Bowling for Columbine" against Heston and the NRA by making them think, not that Heston is simply a little less tactful than he ought to have been, but rather that he and the organization he represented are heartless brutes who were aware of the grief of the people of Columbine, but could not have cared less about it.

They obviously didn't care enough to apologize for the timing of the event. In fact, they only seemed to care insofar as it produced a potential public-relations problem, and that's precisely what I read in Heston's speech. It's actually less prejudicial to clip out the part of the speech where Heston alludes to his fear that Columbine will hurt the NRA's public image.

This is a deliberate misrepresentation of the facts and of Heston's intent for the purpose of evoking a desired reaction in the audience.

You honestly believe that the full text would evoke a different reaction? Believe it or not, documentaries normally just show the parts of a speech that they think are most relevant; no documentary is required to show speeches in their entirety, for obvious reasons of running length. But you must show that the meaning has been substantially changed, and you have not done so. The fact that Heston views the feelings of the Columbine parents as a mere public-relations problem is even more clear in the unedited speech than it is in the version Moore showed.

[Darth Wong]

Heheh, I don't know why, but I found that reply to be somewhat funny...

Perhaps because you didn't understand it.

Mike, He LIED in the movie. He blatantly made libelious remarks against a group of a few million people (namely the NRA, of which I AM a member of, thankyouvermuch). He used twisted quotes and obvious lies to further his point, and I think that makes him loose all credibility.

And yet, when challenged to produce examples of outright lies, I discover far more dishonesty on the part of his critics than on his part.

And yes, when you pick apart someone's statements in something so trivial as a debate in STvSW and as to who would win which one, that is nitpicking.

Wrong, asshole. You have just tried to argue that any SWvST debate tactic by definition must be nitpicking, because the topic itself is trivial. That is not the definition of nitpicking, dumb-ass.

When you start picking apart someone's movie and being finding blatant lies, yes, that is nitpicking as well.

Only if the "lies" do not affect the main arguments being made. If the lies were substantial, it would not be nitpicking, but legitimate criticism of the argument. Are you honestly too fucking stupid to understand the definition of nitpicking? Particularly when the "lies" you speak of are these pathetic "well, ummm, it sort of implies certain feelings ... if you interpret it a certain way ... aahhhhhh ... ummmmm ... yeah ....." bullshit nitpicks.

(BTW, I already have a brain, and it works quite well.)

Incorrect, since you seem to think that all identification of errors is nitpicking by definition, regardless of the magnitude or importance of those errors. Quite the contrary; you have shown yourself to have only the most infantile grasp of the concept.

[Nathan F]

You see, the facts have been placed in front of you, it is your choice whether or not to accept those facts. As for the nitpicking part, you HAVE to nitpick when debating most STvSW, because the numbers and evidence must be dredged out of a few hours of on screen film and various publications.

Of course, when it comes to BfC, then it is, admittedly, open for debate. These lies that are propogated are suggested through mis-quoting and strategic cutting and pasting of quotes. We have already shown what we see to be lies, and it is your choice whether or not to accept that evidence.

Come now, you must be able to see that the intent of using various speech snippets, using animations that obviously suggest a correlation between the KKK and NRA (which, on a side not, must be important enough to warrant an entire segment in the movie), and making statements like WMDs are made in the civilian rocket facility, plus the many more statements that have previously been made. You are smart enough and objective enough to see that. Just go back to the last debate we had on the subject, you will see all the evidence necessary.

Frankly, it is a moot point. The entire basis of this argument is opinion and various interpretations of intents in the movie, none of which are going to be solved in endless debates that have more name calling than actual civil discussion.

[Darth Wong]

You see, the facts have been placed in front of you, it is your choice whether or not to accept those facts. As for the nitpicking part, you HAVE to nitpick when debating most STvSW, because the numbers and evidence must be dredged out of a few hours of on screen film and various publications.

Yet again, you show that you don't understand what nitpicking is. Do you believe that astronomy is nitpicking because they often derive theories from a single picture?

Of course, when it comes to BfC, then it is, admittedly, open for debate. These lies that are propogated are suggested through mis-quoting and strategic cutting and pasting of quotes. We have already shown what we see to be lies, and it is your choice whether or not to accept that evidence.

You are taking edits (a practice used in virtually all documentaries because you can't have a fucking ten hour long documentary) and holding them up as "lies". It's pathetic. You MUST SHOW THAT THE EDIT SUBSTANTIALLY CHANGES THE MEANING, and you have not done so. No one has.

Come now, you must be able to see that the intent of using various speech snippets, using animations that obviously suggest a correlation between the KKK and NRA (which, on a side not, must be important enough to warrant an entire segment in the movie), and making statements like WMDs are made in the civilian rocket facility, plus the many more statements that have previously been made.

If the speech snippet gets the main point across, that's perfectly normal in a documentary. It would only be a lie if Heston had not intended to make that point at all, which is not the case. As I've said REPEATEDLY, I've seen the unedited transcript. Despite your fevered wishes, it doesn't really change anything.

As for the cartoon, you're just being asinine. That is obviously a less serious part of the documentary, based on the fact that it's a GOOFY CARTOON! Do you really need this spelled out for you? And the WMD statement is yet another distortion ... on YOUR part. In the SAME SENTENCE, he describes what happened at Columbine as a form of "mass destruction" as well; he is obviously not talking about NBC weapons.

You are smart enough and objective enough to see that. Just go back to the last debate we had on the subject, you will see all the evidence necessary.

Yes, I saw all the evidence necessary to show that his detractors are nitpicking minutae because they're being hypersensitive. BTW, the claim that he fraudulently said you can freely buy a gun in Canada is, itself, fraudulent. He only showed himself buying ammo in Canada, not a gun.

Frankly, it is a moot point. The entire basis of this argument is opinion and various interpretations of intents in the movie, none of which are going to be solved in endless debates that have more name calling than actual civil discussion.

In that case, you lose. You claim there are major "lies"; if you admit yourself that all you have is "interpretation of intent", then your claim is based on air.

[Nathan F]

In that case, you lose. You claim there are major "lies"; if you admit yourself that all you have is "interpretation of intent", then your claim is based on air.

I wouldn't necessarily say that I lose, per se, but, I will concede that, while you aren't right, nor am I. It is, like I said, open to the interpretation of the viewer, and the way I see it, he is using snippets and other minutae to try to paint a picture of alot of people and a controversial subject, showing it how he wants it shown. You might see it otherwise. Most of the time, I would debate a subject until a clear ending was seen, this, on the other hand, is a subject that HAS no clear ending. We have debated this, what, 3 times now? And we still haven't come to a consensus. And, admittedly, both you and I are set in our ways, and I doubt that, at least on this subject, anything either one of us can say over this BBS will sway us in one way or the other.

[Darth Wong]

I wouldn't necessarily say that I lose, per se, but, I will concede that, while you aren't right, nor am I. It is, like I said, open to the interpretation of the viewer, and the way I see it, he is using snippets and other minutae to try to paint a picture of alot of people and a controversial subject, showing it how he wants it shown. You might see it otherwise. Most of the time, I would debate a subject until a clear ending was seen, this, on the other hand, is a subject that HAS no clear ending. We have debated this, what, 3 times now? And we still haven't come to a consensus. And, admittedly, both you and I are set in our ways, and I doubt that, at least on this subject, anything either one of us can say over this BBS will sway us in one way or the other.

"Golden Mean" fallacy. Sorry, but you made the claim that there are major lies. Therefore, the burden of proof is upon you to show them. By admitting that one must choose to interpret its implications a certain way in order to concoct these "lies", you admit that you have no ammunition.

[Perinquus]

This is the crux of our disagreement, since I did not read that into the film at all. If you chose to do so, that is quite frankly your hypersensitivity showing through. The impression I got was that Heston unapologetically held the meeting despite the feelings of those who didn't want them there, not that Heston actually held the meetings in reaction to Columbine. No one has suggested that, Moore never said that, the film does not imply that, and the only "lie" relating to that claim is the fact that you're making it in the first place.

You did not read that into the film. Many others did. In fact I provided a quote and link from an individual who came away with precisely that impression. And I've spoken to a number of individuals here in Norfolk who also got that impression from watching the film. So I hardly think this is my hypersensitivity.

Wrong. It is virtually standard operating procedure in documentaries to produce a "this is what he's most famous for" clip when you first introduce a character. There is no implication that the clip must have been taken at Denver, unless you simply never watch documentaries about famous people and are not aware of this common practice.

This is like the legal test of "what would a 'reasonable person' do in these circumstances. Once again, what impression is the average viewer likely to take away with him after watching this scene? What impression do many, if not most viewers actually take away with them after watching this scene. I'll tell you - they think Heston made those remarks while in Denver, mere days after Columbine, and they then think to themselves: "My God! What a cold-hearted asshole!".

Michael Moore is many things, but stupid is not one of them. He knows his audience, and he knows how to evoke the reaction he wants.

He was aware that the people of Columbine were in grief for the slain, and that in light of that it would be inappropriate for the NRA to hold the normal celebrations and festivities that they hold at their annual meetings.

Yes, and he apologized to his members for not holding the festivities, rather than apologizing to the families of Columbine for the unfortunate timing of the event. Rather revealing, is it not?

Yes, it's revealing of the fact that he was addressing his members not the families of Columbine.

Remember who the audience was here Mike. You talk about things that it is typical for a documentary makeer to do. Well what about what is typical for a speaker at a gathering to do? Like address his remarks to the people actually in attendance, not to people who are not there, and may very well never hear a word of his speech.

They obviously didn't care enough to apologize for the timing of the event. In fact, they only seemed to care insofar as it produced a potential public-relations problem, and that's precisely what I read in Heston's speech. It's actually less prejudicial to clip out the part of the speech where Heston alludes to his fear that Columbine will hurt the NRA's public image.

Well what would you expect him to do? What would you do? We live in an age where the right to keep and bear arms is under attack from some quarters, and there is a campaign by many in favor of gun control to paint gun owners as basically bad people. Here was Heston at a gathering of gun owners, many of whom were no doubt concerned with the negative effect this could have on gun ownership, a natural enough concern given the purpose of their meeting, and of the organization to which they belong. What exactly do you find so surprising about Heston's speaking to that concern?

You honestly believe that the full text would evoke a different reaction?

Yeah, I think it likely would have, since the full text would have included remarks that showed Heston was not completely insensitive to the grief of the people of Columbine, and the speech the way Moore edited gives people the impression that he was. Or even worse, it gives them the impression that he was sensitive to that grief, but didn't care about it.

Believe it or not, documentaries normally just show the parts of a speech that they think are most relevant; no documentary is required to show speeches in their entirety, for obvious reasons of running length. But you must show that the meaning has been substantially changed, and you have not done so. The fact that Heston views the feelings of the Columbine parents as a mere public-relations problem is even more clear in the unedited speech than it is in the version Moore showed.

No, it does a little more than that. If you read the whole speech, you may get the idea that, as you say, Heston views the feelings of people in the aftermath of Columbine as a public relations problem, and you may think he does not seem concerned enough about their grief. But when you hear Moore's edited version, you get the impression not that Heston doesn't seem concerned enough, but that he's fully aware, and he couldn't give a rat's ass. This is more liable to make people angry at Heston, and turn opinion against him and the NRA.

As I said, it was selective editing and presentation of material in order to evoke a desired emotional response - in this case a distinctly negative response. This is the mark of a film maker with an agenda, not one who is at least trying for objective presentation.

[Darth Wong]

So we're right back at "sort of creates an impression". That's quite a mighty fall back from the "lies" position, and it hardly justifies the attacks made on Moore. As I said, this is nitpickery blown wildly out of proportion.

PS. Anyone who seriously thought the NRA meeting was organized in 10 days with massive turnout as a reaction to Columbine after watching the movie would have to be a complete idiot. Moore can't be held responsible for something so stupid.

[Perinquus]

So we're right back at "sort of creates an impression". That's quite a mighty fall back from the "lies" position, and it hardly justifies the attacks made on Moore. As I said, this is nitpickery blown wildly out of proportion.

I'm not the one who accused him of outright lying. I said he was dishonest - an assertion I stand by. It is possible to be dishonest without lying or fabricating. You just use half truths, omissions, and out of context quotes to create a false and misleading impression. Do this and you can lead people to believe things that are not entirely true without actually fabricating anything.

PS. Anyone who seriously thought the NRA meeting was organized in 10 days with massive turnout as a reaction to Columbine after watching the movie would have to be a complete idiot. Moore can't be held responsible for something so stupid.

Sure he can. People are easily led, especially in mass. People often act without thinking things over. The fact of that doesn't absolve a person of responsibility when he goes and puts ideas in other people's heads just because they ought to have known better. This is why we jail people for conning other people out of their money. Every con has something in it that would cause a sensible person to stop and think "wait a minute, something here is not kosher." But people just go with their greed and don't think things through. By your logic, the con man is innocent. The sucker should have known better. The con man can't be held responsible if they were so stupid.

[Darth Wong]

I'm not the one who accused him of outright lying. I said he was dishonest - an assertion I stand by. It is possible to be dishonest without lying or fabricating. You just use half truths, omissions, and out of context quotes to create a false and misleading impression.

Except that you have failed to show how the impression was false or misleading except to claim that you know some idiot who interpreted it in an entirely unreasonable fashion and that therefore, his interpretation must be the fault of the film.

I'm sure I can find some wacko who interprets the Bible to be the source of all science, but that doesn't mean it should be seriously credited for it.

Sure he can. People are easily led, especially in mass. People often act without thinking things over. The fact of that doesn't absolve a person of responsibility when he goes and puts ideas in other people's heads just because they ought to have known better.

If the interpretation is entirely unreasonable, it is not his fault.

This is why we jail people for conning other people out of their money. Every con has something in it that would cause a sensible person to stop and think "wait a minute, something here is not kosher." But people just go with their greed and don't think things through. By your logic, the con man is innocent. The sucker should have known better. The con man can't be held responsible if they were so stupid.

False analogy. The conman tells outright lies, hence if you believe him, it is perfectly reasonable to come to the wrong conclusion. I thought you were the one who said you weren't claiming he was an outright liar.

[Perinquus]

Except that you have failed to show how the impression was false or misleading except to claim that you know some idiot who interpreted it in an entirely unreasonable fashion and that therefore, his interpretation must be the fault of the film.

Not "some idiot", a reasonable person. Once again, what impression are many, if not most of the people who see the film coming away with? If a significant portion of people who view the film come away with that impression it is neither "some idiot", nor is it an "entirely unreasonable" interpretation.

False analogy. The conman tells outright lies, hence if you believe him, it is perfectly reasonable to come to the wrong conclusion. I thought you were the one who said you weren't claiming he was an outright liar.

Now who's nitpicking? In both cases you have someone who is deceiving people in order to produce a desired end. So one is telling outright lies and the other is merely playing fast and loose with the evidence. So what? It's still deliberate deception. In both cases there is intent to deceive people. In both cases, a little thought on the part of the person who is being hoodwinked would see through the deception. This is why it is an old maxim among con artists that you can't con an honest person. Everyone who falls for it has a little larceny in his heart. The con artist preys on that. The victim sees dollar signs, and greed overcomes his better judgement; he never stops to think about what he's doing, just plunges ahead and gets hornswoggled. The viewer of "Bowling for Columbine" is given selectively edited material to watch in order to produce a particular emotional response, and he simply goes along with that emotional reaction - anger at the NRA's insensitivity - without stopping to think whether Heston and the NRA would have had time to oraganize that meeting in response to the tragedy.

[aronkerkhof]

I saw this post in response to a discussion of the same subject at Kuro5hin, by a user named Alan Crowe. His response was positive, however:

I loved the way that he set up the pat answers and knocked them down again.

I was annoyed that he tackled all the standard issues except the biggest one. The greatest crimes of the last century were governments massacrering their own citizens. Some claim that the right to keep and bear arms has shaped American politics in ways that have spared America the horrors that other countries have suffered. Important if true.

This issue overshadows the whole debate. The statement that America is a more violent society than Germany is a not an objective fact, but a political decision about whether certain episodes of violence are too "big" to be called crimes, and ascend to a more elevated plane of debate.

Michael Moore's film sweeps this political choice under the carpet. He set the debate on the domestic scale. Will a gun let you defend yourself against a burgler? Will a pupil use a gun in a playground quarrel? I would have been quite comfortable if he had spent 30 seconds saying that there is a bigger issue, but he is not going to tackle it. I was not comfortable with the sense that the bigger issue had simply been forgotten.

I think that Mike Moore did an admireable job of putting up all the common reasons for America's violence, then knocking them all flat. Pro, Anti, whatever, if you were paying attention, you should have felt your argument had the air let out of it. The film doesn't really come to a satisfying answer, but it does spark debate.

My only problem aside from the above omission, which I feel is a substantial and well known private gun advocacy argument, is this: If he wanted to make a thought provoking documentary, why did he stretch the truth and exaggerate to the extent that he did? As Mike (Wong) points out, they are tangital to the main argument, so why? And if he wanted to "sex up" the story a bit, why not make it a work of fiction? Plenty of thought provoking moves in the same vein get made (Traffic, and Requiem for a Dream, etc).

[Kynes]

I think that Mike Moore did an admireable job of putting up all the common reasons for America's violence, then knocking them all flat. Pro, Anti, whatever, if you were paying attention, you should have felt your argument had the air let out of it. The film doesn't really come to a satisfying answer, but it does spark debate.

My only qualm: if it's so bad for the media to scare-monger, why name the film after the biggest scare-tactic of them all? The over-coverage of Columbine made my life, personally, hard (try going to high school in Colorado back then). So yeah, that's it.

IS

[MKSheppard]

Want me to start applying Michael Moore editing ethics to quotes now?

I'm sure I can cook up a string of quotes out of context by you Mike,
praising Robert Scott Anderson as a paragon of truthfulness.

This has always been a problem with Moore, right from his "Roger and Me"
days. He's never felt any qualms about aggressively editing footage to make
it look like people did something else.

It's also the reason why I would never agree to a filmed interview with him
without planting hidden bugs and videocameras all over the room to make
sure I have a complete unedited copy of the interview - he's just that
dishonest.

[aronkerkhof]

I'll post some answers to the rest in a bit. Right now, I've got to go take a shower with the door open (so I can hear the Apple deliveryman when he comes).

The fruit?

No, I have to confess: I bought an iPod and a PowerBook. Broke down, I did. I'd like to say the stability of MacOS X and its 21-gun salute to its UNIX heritage did me in, but the truth is, it's shiny.

There's no shame in the game when it comes to owning a powerbook, son. Those babies are tasty! Now, if you said iMac or G4, I'd be looking at you sideways, especially considering you own Unbreakable anyway.