Fatass may lose his Oscar

[Lord of the Farce]

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

Thank you

[Master of Ossus]

That article was discussed in the other thread. Its author is guilty of the exact same sort of misleading innuendo for which he blasts Moore.

Sorry, but while OUTRIGHT LIES can disqualify a documentary as a documentary, but I don't see how misleading innuendo does.

Mike, first of all, the speech with Charlton Heston CLEARLY crossed the line between portraying facts and altering them.

Having said that, look at the sequence when Moore is talking about the Colombine Shooters. He claims that they had not violated any laws when purchasing their firearms, when in fact they are believed to have broken more than 20 Colorado and Federal laws regarding the possession of firearms. They didn't even ATTEND the bowling class that they were alleged to have attended WITHIN THE TITLE OF THE FILM. Moreover, Moore claimed that the Lockheed-Martin plant in Denver built ICBM's, when in fact it was converting ICBM's to be used in commercial satellite-launching endeavors.

The scene in which Moore draws a connection between the KKK and the NRA by showing that the NRA was founded in the same year that the KKK was legally outlawed (it had been committing violent crimes long before then), was frankly ludicrous in its dishonest impressions (and the purpose of a documentary is to GIVE PEOPLE THE RIGHT IMPRESSION), and the presentation of Moore purchasing a firearm in a Canadian Walmart in a staged or illegal scene was also dishonest in the extreme.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

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

Thank you

EEEOOWWW!!!

Umm dood, I think you're playing with fire here. I can understand your need to back up your argument, but this is cutting it a wee bit close...

[Shinova]

It's not the meaning of the film we're concerned about. It's the support he's put together to convey it. That's the problem with his film, not his message.

[Darth Wong]

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

Thank you

EEEOOWWW!!!

Umm dood, I think you're playing with fire here. I can understand your need to back up your argument, but this is cutting it a wee bit close...

He's not backing up his argument. He is now ALTERING WORDS, which has nothing to do with any argument and everything to do with him trying to be an asshole. He has just crossed the line into outright misrepresentation of statements, which is not tolerated.

[Nathan F]

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.

OK, lets have a hypothetical situation here:

I am inteviewing Bob. Bob says, Well, I am against alot of the gun control, but, I think that some guns such as a Mk. 19 Grenade Launcher should be illegal.

I then say, well, what about an AR-15?

Bob replies with, Yeah, they are OK.

When makign my review, I cut this as saying "Well, I am against gun control, such as the Mk. 19 Grenade Launcher."

Then after an interview with someone else who thinks that the general public should be able to have M1A1 Abrams tanks, I stick in Bob saying 'Yeah, they are OK.'

That is very analagous as to what Moore did with sticking Heston's "From My Cold Dead Hand's" speech right after stating that the NRA held a 'Gun Rally' in Denver just after it.

[MKSheppard]

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

Now do you understand why we hate that fat unshaven fuck? You can't
blatantly lie and blatantly edit footage and call it a "documentary".

This reminds me of the fucking Rodney King mess. The media selectively
edited that tape, to make it look like the cops were wailing on him for
no reason, leaving out the part where he charged the cops on PCP,
after they had told him to lie down..

[Darth Wong]

Mike, first of all, the speech with Charlton Heston CLEARLY crossed the line between portraying facts and altering them.

Could someone please explain how, then? Everyone keeps repeating this claim, without backing it up.

Having said that, look at the sequence when Moore is talking about the Colombine Shooters. He claims that they had not violated any laws when purchasing their firearms, when in fact they are believed to have broken more than 20 Colorado and Federal laws regarding the possession of firearms.

I was not aware of this. If it's true, then it's more serious. So why is everyone harping on bullshit like the placement of a clip from a Heston speech?

They didn't even ATTEND the bowling class that they were alleged to have attended WITHIN THE TITLE OF THE FILM. Moreover, Moore claimed that the Lockheed-Martin plant in Denver built ICBM's, when in fact it was converting ICBM's to be used in commercial satellite-launching endeavors.

Nitpicks, since they aren't particularly important to the underlying argument.

The scene in which Moore draws a connection between the KKK and the NRA by showing that the NRA was founded in the same year that the KKK was legally outlawed (it had been committing violent crimes long before then), was frankly ludicrous in its dishonest impressions (and the purpose of a documentary is to GIVE PEOPLE THE RIGHT IMPRESSION),

I saw that portion of the film. You are exaggerating.

and the presentation of Moore purchasing a firearm in a Canadian Walmart in a staged or illegal scene was also dishonest in the extreme.

When did he purchase a firearm in a Canadian Wal-mart?

[MKSheppard]

He's not backing up his argument. He is now ALTERING WORDS, which has nothing to do with any argument and everything to do with him trying to be an asshole. He has just crossed the line into outright misrepresentation of statements, which is not tolerated.

Lol, pot calling Kettle black. This is exactly what Michael Moore did in BFC

[Master of Ossus]

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".

Mike, Lou Dobbs actually asked Moore about this, and other incidents in which Moore had made "factual errors" in his work. After Dobbs called them "glaring" (meaning "significant" or "substantial), Moore claimed that his was NOT a documentary, it was never intended to be a documentary, and that it was designed for entertainment value. Basically, this tells me that he shouldn't have accepted the Oscar. What would you have done if Alien had won the Academy Award's best Comedy? Obviously something is wrong, here. To be fair, Moore has flip-flopped on NUMEROUS occasions when attempting to either win credit or dodge criticism of his work, but if he admits that it's not a documentary I hardly see why the film should win the Oscar in that category.

[Nathan F]

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".

No, If you will notice, i said 'using it as a base for ONE of his arguments', of which he is doing. I said after that that debates that REST ON THAT LIE are rendered invalid. IIRC, he bases that as being a key reason for what happened in Columbine.

[Darth Wong]

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

Now do you understand why we hate that fat unshaven fuck? You can't
blatantly lie and blatantly edit footage and call it a "documentary".

And since you haven't produced quotes in order to show that he changed 1 to 0 or 0 to 1, you have utterly failed to back up your point with anything but vitriol and bullshit. Editing is common in all documentaries; rarely does someone show a complete speech in its entirety. But you must show that the meaning is completely changed, and you haven't even TRIED. Get it now? Or would you like me to repeat it in bright colours for you, for a THIRD FUCKING TIME?

This reminds me of the fucking Rodney King mess. The media selectively edited that tape, to make it look like the cops were wailing on him for no reason, leaving out the part where he charged the cops on PCP,
after they had told him to lie down..

True. That distortion has been established. Now go and prove your assertion on the Moore quoting argument, instead of simply repeating it in progressively more offensive ways.

[Darth Wong]

He's not backing up his argument. He is now ALTERING WORDS, which has nothing to do with any argument and everything to do with him trying to be an asshole. He has just crossed the line into outright misrepresentation of statements, which is not tolerated.

Lol, pot calling Kettle black. This is exactly what Michael Moore did in BFC

Care to back up that bullshit? Where did he change a word to another word in his clips of Heston? Did he dub over his voice and use CGI to fix his mouth movements?

[Glocksman]

The scene in which Moore draws a connection between the KKK and the NRA by showing that the NRA was founded in the same year that the KKK was legally outlawed (it had been committing violent crimes long before then), was frankly ludicrous in its dishonest impressions (and the purpose of a documentary is to GIVE PEOPLE THE RIGHT IMPRESSION), and the presentation of Moore purchasing a firearm in a Canadian Walmart in a staged or illegal scene was also dishonest in the extreme.

IIRC, Moore was purchasing ammunition, not a gun at the Walmart in Canada.

I *can* walk in a store in my state and purchase ammo without a permit or ID (you just have to be over 21 and I'm much older than that, and the requirements vary from state to state anyway), but I thought that Canada required non-Canadians to have some kind of permit to purchase ammo?

[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".

No, If you will notice, i said 'using it as a base for ONE of his arguments', of which he is doing. I said after that that debates that REST ON THAT LIE are rendered invalid. IIRC, he bases that as being a key reason for what happened in Columbine.

He says that the Columbine massacres were caused by a Lockheed-Martin plant producing missiles? I would love to see that. And your last sentence did indeed claim that the entire argument collapses if you knock out that piece, but nice try at backpedaling.

[Nathan F]

He's not backing up his argument. He is now ALTERING WORDS, which has nothing to do with any argument and everything to do with him trying to be an asshole. He has just crossed the line into outright misrepresentation of statements, which is not tolerated.

Lol, pot calling Kettle black. This is exactly what Michael Moore did in BFC

Care to back up that bullshit? Where did he change a word to another word in his clips of Heston? Did he dub over his voice and use CGI to fix his mouth movements?

Use of cuts and rehashes placed in strategic points in the film. The Heston speech being the point in question.

[Glocksman]

Here's a link to both Moore's version of the speech and the transcript of the speech as actually given.

Compare them for yourself.

[Darth Wong]

Care to back up that bullshit? Where did he change a word to another word in his clips of Heston? Did he dub over his voice and use CGI to fix his mouth movements?

Use of cuts and rehashes placed in strategic points in the film. The Heston speech being the point in question.

Which does not entail altering a spoken word to another word, hence it is not equivalent to what Shep did. Get it now?

And for the umpteenth time, if he completely changed the meaning of the speech with his editing, then why can't someone simply post relevant transcript excerpts alongside his edited version in order to PROVE THIS CLAIM? Is that so much to ask?

[MKSheppard]

then why can't someone simply post relevant transcript excerpts alongside his edited version in order to PROVE THIS CLAIM? Is that so much to ask?

Glocksman just did

[Darth Wong]

Here's a link to both Moore's version of the speech and the transcript of the speech as actually given.

Compare them for yourself.

Thank you. On that note, after comparing the original speech and the quick-cut version, I conclude that the substantial meaning has not been altered, although it certainly sounds more eloquent and less bullying in its full version.

[irishmick79]

Thank you

EEEOOWWW!!!

Umm dood, I think you're playing with fire here. I can understand your need to back up your argument, but this is cutting it a wee bit close...

He's not backing up his argument. He is now ALTERING WORDS, which has nothing to do with any argument and everything to do with him trying to be an asshole. He has just crossed the line into outright misrepresentation of statements, which is not tolerated.

And that's EXACTLY what Moore was doing in his "documentary." And because his use of editing has brought about serious questions of credibility in his work, you shouldn't be as quick to write off his editing as "careless error" or the like. Stringing together different speeches into one via editing (as Moore apparently did) is certainly altering context, if not altering words outright. Simply put, Moore's work has more in common with works of propaganda than it does with documentaries. Moore obviously has very pointed political viewpoints, and he has repeatedly stated that he aims to promote them agressively. When credibility questions arise, is it not reasonable to simply dismiss Moore's work as propaganda? Why should we uphold it as a credible documentary?

[Nathan F]

Care to back up that bullshit? Where did he change a word to another word in his clips of Heston? Did he dub over his voice and use CGI to fix his mouth movements?

Use of cuts and rehashes placed in strategic points in the film. The Heston speech being the point in question.

Which does not entail altering a spoken word to another word, hence it is not equivalent to what Shep did. Get it now?

Yes, I see what you are saying, and what Shep did might have been going a bit far, but it was simply making a point. But...

And for the umpteenth time, if he completely changed the meaning of the speech with his editing, then why can't someone simply post relevant transcript excerpts alongside his edited version in order to PROVE THIS CLAIM? Is that so much to ask?

Taken from the previously posted website:

Weeping children outside Columbine;

Cut to Charlton Heston holding a musket and proclaiming "I have only five words for you: 'from my cold, dead, hands'";

Cut to billboard advertising the meeting, while Moore intones "Just ten days after the Columbine killings, despite the pleas of a community in mourning, Charlton Heston came to Denver and held a large pro-gun rally for the National Rifle Association"

Cut to Heston (supposedly) continuing speech... "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!"

...

When Bowling continues on to the speech which Heston did give in Denver, it carefully edits it to change its theme.

Moore's fabrication here cannot be described by any polite term. It is a lie, a fraud, and a few other things. Carrying it out required a LOT of editing to mislead the viewer, as I will show below. I transcribed Heston's speech as Moore has it, and compared it to a news agency's transcript, color coding the passages. CLICK HERE for the comparison, with links to the original transcript.

Moore has actually taken audio of seven sentences, from five different parts of the speech, and a section given in a different speech entirely, and spliced them together. Each edit is cleverly covered by inserting a still or video footage for a few seconds.

First, right after the weeping victims, Moore puts on Heston's "I have only five words for you . . . cold dead hands" statement, making it seem directed at them. As noted above, it's actually a thank-you speech given a year later in North Carolina.

Moore then has an interlude -- a visual of a billboard and his narration. This is vital. He can't go directly to Heston's real Denver speech. If he did that, you might ask why Heston in mid-speech changed from a purple tie and lavender shirt to a white shirt and red tie, and the background draperies went from maroon to blue. Moore has to separate the two segments.

[Shinova]

Thank you. On that note, after comparing the original speech and the quick-cut version, I conclude that the substantial meaning has not been altered, although it certainly sounds more eloquent and less bullying in its full version.

I think the point here is that it doesn't matter if the substantial meaning is changed or not. The very fact that Moore put them out of context (normal documentaries edit too but never to put the clips out of context) is what's grounds for revocation of the oscar.

[Nathan F]

He says that the Columbine massacres were caused by a Lockheed-Martin plant producing missiles? I would love to see that. And your last sentence did indeed claim that the entire argument collapses if you knock out that piece, but nice try at backpedaling.

In a roundabout way he says it:
"So you don't think our kids say to themselves, 'Dad goes off to the factory every day, he builds missiles of mass destruction. What's the difference between that mass destruction and the mass destruction over at Columbine High School?'"

Backpedaling? I don't see myself as backpedaling, considering that I am taking the same stance that I have since the argument started, without rehashing any words I previuosly stated or contradicting myself...

[Darth Wong]

You are exaggerating. Moore did indeed take quotes out of context. I agree that this has been clearly established. However, to argue that the result somehow says something completely contrary to Heston's intent is bullshit. Heston is certainly famous for his "cold dead hands" line, and the basic intent of his speech was simply to say that the NRA is not an invading force, but rather, an indigenous political movement. That basic meaning is still present in the edited version.