MKSheppard wrote:Thank youDarth Wong wrote: In other words, I quietly concede the point. Thank you.

Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital
MKSheppard wrote:Thank youDarth Wong wrote: In other words, I quietly concede the point. Thank you.
Mike, first of all, the speech with Charlton Heston CLEARLY crossed the line between portraying facts and altering them.Darth Wong wrote: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.
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.Einhander Sn0m4n wrote:EEEOOWWW!!!MKSheppard wrote:Thank youDarth Wong wrote: In other words, I quietly concede the point. Thank you.
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...
OK, lets have a hypothetical situation here:Darth Wong wrote: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 wrote: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.
Now do you understand why we hate that fat unshaven fuck? You can'tDarth Wong wrote: Shep, if you keep doing that, I will start editing and deleting your posts en masse, and that is not an empty threat, asshole.
Could someone please explain how, then? Everyone keeps repeating this claim, without backing it up.Master of Ossus wrote:Mike, first of all, the speech with Charlton Heston CLEARLY crossed the line between portraying facts and altering them.
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?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.
Nitpicks, since they aren't particularly important to the underlying argument.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.
I saw that portion of the film. You are exaggerating.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),
When did he purchase a firearm in a Canadian Wal-mart?and the presentation of Moore purchasing a firearm in a Canadian Walmart in a staged or illegal scene was also dishonest in the extreme.
Lol, pot calling Kettle black. This is exactly what Michael Moore did in BFCDarth Wong wrote: 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.
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.Darth Wong wrote: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".Nathan F wrote: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.
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 wrote: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".Nathan F wrote: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.
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?MKSheppard wrote:Now do you understand why we hate that fat unshaven fuck? You can'tDarth Wong wrote:Shep, if you keep doing that, I will start editing and deleting your posts en masse, and that is not an empty threat, asshole.
blatantly lie and blatantly edit footage and call it a "documentary".
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.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..
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?MKSheppard wrote:Lol, pot calling Kettle black. This is exactly what Michael Moore did in BFCDarth Wong wrote: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.
IIRC, Moore was purchasing ammunition, not a gun at the Walmart in Canada.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.
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 wrote: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 wrote: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".Nathan F wrote: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.
Use of cuts and rehashes placed in strategic points in the film. The Heston speech being the point in question.Darth Wong wrote: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?MKSheppard wrote:Lol, pot calling Kettle black. This is exactly what Michael Moore did in BFCDarth Wong wrote: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.
Which does not entail altering a spoken word to another word, hence it is not equivalent to what Shep did. Get it now?Nathan F wrote:Use of cuts and rehashes placed in strategic points in the film. The Heston speech being the point in question.Darth Wong wrote: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 just didDarth Wong wrote: 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?
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.Glocksman wrote: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.
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?Darth Wong wrote: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.Einhander Sn0m4n wrote:EEEOOWWW!!!MKSheppard wrote: Thank you
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...
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...Darth Wong wrote:Which does not entail altering a spoken word to another word, hence it is not equivalent to what Shep did. Get it now?Nathan F wrote:Use of cuts and rehashes placed in strategic points in the film. The Heston speech being the point in question.Darth Wong wrote: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?
Taken from the previously posted website: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?
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.Darth Wong wrote: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.
In a roundabout way he says it:Darth Wong wrote:Nathan F wrote:Darth Wong wrote: 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.