Haha. That's my partner. COLIN is my flame-nick. ;-)

I fail to grasp really where you get that I do not see the difference?

I am simply trying to find out where the lies end and this bullshit about Michael Moore telling LIES in his film.

if you let that devils advocate post dictate how I feel, I again fail to grasp why you would?

hahaha

im laughing and now HOURs later, on PAGE 2, you POP in and arent even talking about where we are.

Anyway, if you cant show me the lies, I dont care to continue.

I can grasp the difference, its funny that you would think I couldnt simply because I post a thread to get response on a board.

anyway... you didnt even read the thread so blah blah blah

you are a CHILD, you call yourself one... and you dont get what I am saying.

FACT IS YOU CAN BUY A GUN FROM A BANK YOU IDIOT, thats all he was trying to say.

instead of debatuing THAT fact, you grasp at how LONG it takes?

hahaha you missed the point entirely.

he is simply saying look how backward this is to use a promotion called "MORE BANG FOR YOUR BUCK" and offer free guns with bank accounts?

that in itself is ridiculous, you want to argue how long the matter takes or what he was trying to say?

ahhh, didnt think so.

you are confusing "fiction" or "based on fiction" with "lie"

The Last Samurai is in no way represented as being factual, truthful, historically accurate or as being the truth. Can the same be said of Roger Moore and any of his movies?

Is there a waiting period to purchase a gun in Michigan?

Or was this one week wait due to the guns not being in stock?

Whats the gun laws...can you walk into a store and buy a shotgun and get it right then and there?

I wont even begin with someone who pops in on page 3 clueless and wanting to argue about Tom Cruise movies, this thread was never *really* about those movies, it was to get the topic rolling, which it did.

If you want to talk about Tom Cruise movies, I suggest you cuddle up with COlin and watch Top Gun, because Im waiting on a phone call then im going party.

you waited too long if you want my attention

hahaha

again - go read the thread and DO TRY TO GRASP THE SARCASM!

which you have miserably failed at on your first attempt.

i didnt know all those movies listed were released as docu mentaries and pushed as though they were %100 truth.

I'm 30 years old. I believe this qualifies me to be an Adult. Thanks.

Here is Michael Moore's EXACT LIES IN WORDS:

"Nothing was done out of the ordinary other than to phone ahead and ask permission to let me bring a camera in to film me opening up my account."


I REPEAT. NOTHING WAS DONE OUT OF THE ORDINARY.

Now in your words

So which is it? He simply called and said he's going to be filming, or the whole fucking thing is setup? We know what happened. It was all staged.

I REPEAT. NOTHING WAS DONE OUT OF THE ORDINARY.

Something seems to be out of the ordinary here, doesn't it?

men dont call themself "WarChild" so save that lie for someone else kid.

Quote:

So which is it? He simply called and said he's going to be filming, or the whole fucking thing is setup? We know what happened. It was all staged.

you have proved again you are COMPLETELY CLUELESS as to how things go when FILMING A MOVIE.

i care not to entertain you, simply quote me and bnump this thread.

You really are a fucktard. Many have met me. I assure you I am not spinning lies about my age.

Is it at all possible that I have been online, on BBS's and Datapac since long before the internet? Could I have used that name then? Is it possible I'm still using it?

I'll just take that as an admission you're wrong. You don't dispute the fact that Michael Moore says nothing was done out of the ordinary, and yet the bank says that rifle was pre ordered to be there FOR this film. That's OUT OF THE ORDINARY. And that qualifies as a lie.

you originally made a referrence to films with "distorted facts" and attempted in your own drunken way to make the connection that those "distorted facts" are no different than Michael Moores "distorted facts"

my point was simply that a movie like The Last Samurai (which you referred to as an example) and other movies are not being represented as being "fact" or an accurate representation of anything. The same cannot be said in Michael Moores movies where he is clearly trying to send a political message rather than simply entertain.

http://www.csgv.org/issues/licensing...ng_periods.cfm

Michigan
Permit required to purchase handguns. Local law enforcement is supposed to issue permit "with due speed and diligence", but no limit is placed on the wait to acquire a permit

handguns

So the point he was trying to make is that he could walk into this bank and get a shotgun.

The bank teller chick now says they didn't always have them on the premises, sometimes it takes a week, but not because of some required permit waiting period.

geez some people are daft

:thumbsup

ah SO YOU MAKE UP LIES ABOUT ME BEING DRUNk, to prove your point about "distorted facts?"

I havent had a drop of alcohol in days, no herbs either, am pretty much sober.

Its good to know someone with your brain can be knocked down to such naughty tactics like telling lies in a post about TRUTH.

what a friggin joke. I am supposed to drive tonight, Im NOT DRINKING!!!

liar.

:1orglaugh

You almost got it. Except not quite. Here's what the bank actually said:

But Jan Jacobson, the bank employee who worked with Mr. Moore on his account, says that only happened because Mr. Moore's film company had worked for a month to stage the scene. "What happened at the bank was a prearranged thing," she says. The gun was brought from a gun dealer in another city, where it would normally have to be picked up. "Typically, you're looking at a week to 10 days waiting period," she says. Ms. Jacobson feels used: "He just portrayed us as backward hicks."

You are very naive if you think Hollywood movies don't contain subtextual political messages.

Ah SO YOU MAKE UP LIES ABOUT ME BEING A CHILD, to prove your point?

I haven't been a child, arguably, for a good 10 years.

It's good to see that somebody with such a high post count, an obvious qualification of intelligence, can be knocked down to such naughty tactics like telling lies in a post about TRUTH.

what a friggin joke. I am supposed to go to a movie tonight and pay adult price, Im NOT A CHILD!!

liar.
:1orglaugh

blahblahblahKILLWHITEYblahblahblah

Thanks for your intelligent contribution to the discussion.

why make an intelligent contribution? they are just ignored in an attempt to prove a point.

The crux of the issue is this. Moore's work IS propaganda.. and very well constructed propaganda at that. How you interpret what he presents is up to you, but you'll be hard pressed to find any deliberate lies within his work.

have you ever taken even a rudimentary history class? there is no such thing as a '100% truth' in any sort of d o c u m e nt a r y, paper, etc.

i consider distorting facts intentially as lying
its amazing how he can show only the side he needs to push his point, and then call his personal opinions fact. if i made a movie about hitler, but only showed the times he rescued kittens and fed the homeless, would you be angry when i called it a docu mentary?

i didnt say there was, i said he pushs the movie as nothing but facts he's "discovered" and "uncovered" to push his political agenda.

Bingo.

You wouldn't have "lied" but what you presented as a d0cumentary wouldn't be the "truth" either.

How does this disqualify the film from being a docu mentary?

Every docu mentary has a point of view.

Regardless of what facts he shows.. facts are facts if you like them or not. As far as distortion, i think Moore tends to like displaying things in their naturally unfortunate contexts because this has greater effect.

I can't see how you can rationally make this comparison.

uh, so does every doc u mentary, in one form or another. what a revelation.

doc·u·men·ta·ry ( P ) Pronunciation Key (dky-mnt-r)
adj.
Consisting of, concerning, or based on hahahahahahahahas.
Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.

would you like the def of objectively?

okay, you are obviously a fucking idiot. sorry, but there is no such thing as an objective 'anything', for example docs.

carry on.

dont waste your time posting the mindless and missleading propaganda of Websters Dictionary .

:winkwink:

:1orglaugh

i like your retort.

Perhaps you need to complain to the classification review board.

thanks, i put alot of thought into it

I dispute parts of dictionary.com's definition.

I studied film for three years and anyone with a basic knowledge of the history of the docu mentary film knows that ALL docu mentaries are biased to one particular point of view or another. Why? Because the person or people responsible for it have a point of view. "Objectivity" doesn't come into it. There is no "objective" docu mentary because everything is subjective.

But that's not what's at issue here. The real question is did Michael Moore present lies as fact?

Here's Cambridge Dictionary's definition of docu mentary:

docu mentary [Show phonetics]
noun [C]
a film or television or radio programme that gives facts and information about a subject:
The docu mentary took a fresh look at the life of Darwin.
They showed a docu mentary on animal communication.

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/

No mention of "objectivity" there.

bingo

cant believe the dictionary 50% of the time either.

take the dictionary.com defintion of porn for example.

n : illegal activities designed to stimulate sexual desire [syn: pornography, porno]

:1orglaugh

I agree with everything except for Platoon which is a great movie. Yes it's an Hollywood movie but it was one of the first movie to talk about rape, drug, diseases and many shitty things that were going on in Vietnam. It's really not cheesy like Pearl Harbor and Titanic....

You must have missed Apacolypse Now?

Now that is a good movie!!!



:thumbsup

:thumbsup

I will back it up... and then off I go to celebrate Mexican independence.

http://www.marccooper.com/

:glugglug

since Apocalypse Now has come up, notice how to pass that film off they had to make it a "dream" type of movie, those "untalked about realities" of Nam are a PERFECt example of films and propaganda, and how one can view them as either simply a film, or someones point of view.

Like Coppola didnt have something to say in AN. of course he did, and its a great piece of work.

He never said it wasnt factual. Stop being a sheep, youre too smart of a woman for that.

I did not miss it. I have seen it several times actually. And the redux version as well.

Ah good.

"I agree with everything except for Platoon which is a great movie. Yes it's an Hollywood movie but it was one of the first movie to talk about rape, drug, diseases"

I misread and thought you meant it was THE FIRST, I missed "one of the" first.

AN is 1979 Platoon was 86. Huge difference in times which is why I said, notice how with Apocalypse Now it was a"a dream" in Platoon it was more reality based, at least by plot and storyboard.

I like war movies.

Johnny Got His Gun, have you seen that old one?

I do sound as well, and am a licensed holder of every sound used in Coppolas film and can reuse them as well.

good stuff! 5 discs of sounds

Of course Michael Moore distorted the facts by not showing both sides of the story, and to a certain audience it is entertaining. I'm not promoting or diminishing what he did, but to consider the movie specifically I'm referring to: "Bowling for Columbine," I wouldn't consider any movie that interviews one of the creators of "South Park" for intelligent insight as 100% trustworthy.

If you like his work, might I suggest a little TV show on Showtime Thursday nights at 10PM EST, Penn and Teller's Bullshit! (yeah I got stock in Showtime but so what?) They do some of the lop-sided arguments as well. Someone posted the website www.bowlingforthetruth.com I believe early in the thread, I suggest it to any Michael Moore supporters. There are always two sides to the story, Michael Moore is merely known for setting up the variables in the story slightly in his favor. That's undeniable, and consider that before running to his defense on the issue :)

I say "Bowling for Columbine" IS a hahahahahahahahaary - how much of it is correct, true - or even just satire doesn't matter to me.

I like the movie. I've seen it twice. I bought it for someone for Christmas. It's entertaining. I think Michael Moore is funny.

I don't however find anything in it to be, as some call it, particularly educational or "eye-opening". Much of it is opinion backed up by anecdotes. It's not rigorous (nor is it intended to be). In short, it's not science.

The film does describe a "problem" but there's nothing new there. There's a large body of work on the subject and nearly all of it is of a higher standard than "Columbine". "Columbine" is entertainment. It does not attempt to describe nor even outline and explain the nearly universal rise in crime rates beginning in 1961 in western countries. It does not mention the precipitous drop in the US homicide rate starting in the early 1990s. It does not mention nor attempt to explain why the US homicide rate is about the same today as it was in 1913 - that it rose and fell. It does not mention - as far as I remember - the huge racial gap in the US homicide rate and attempt to explain how that fits his thesis. Maybe he thinks urban youth watch the news more? He did not compare and contrast news broadcasts in various parts of the world.

Why? Because he's an entertainer and a comedian who hahahahahas books with "dude" in the title. Funny guy.

:glugglug