Micheal Moore

Deacon · Post by **Deacon** » Sat Jul 10, 2004 6:21 am

Define shortly, and we can go from there.

StruckingFuggle · Post by **StruckingFuggle** » Sat Jul 10, 2004 6:34 am

I honestly can't put an exact date on "shortly" ... Within, lets say, two months, certainly not. As time goes on it would slowly become less and less absolute, going through "probably not", "if there's nothing more important to do", "eh, but it's in bad taste", to finally "acceptable".

(Of course it just hit me, knowing Moore's techniques, that might not even be in response to the WTC Bombing.)

Blind Pyr0 · Post by **Blind Pyr0** » Sat Jul 10, 2004 6:51 am

The "stop terrorist killers" quote is reffering to a suicide attack in isreal, or palentstine, on of the two.

StruckingFuggle · Post by **StruckingFuggle** » Sat Jul 10, 2004 6:58 am

Well F.M.R. ... As I said -I withdraw my complaints about the timing, but I still think the actual method of response is still worthy of protest.

And Pyro, the attack had to be in Isreael. The President of the United States would NEVER call on everyone to stop the "terrorist killers" of Israel from attacking Palestinians.

Posted Sat Jul 10, 2004 2:47 am:

An already kind of addressed point, but an observation about it: The "Bush should have sat there, which he did, instead of rushing out the door" is a good example of a false dichotomy, as those are not the only two choices. As I said, he could have politely and calmly excused himself saying he needed to deal with important matters (instead of something so incredibly insignifigant as a PR Photo Op)

Mandor · Post by **Mandor** » Sat Jul 10, 2004 9:56 am

Michael Moore is clapping for this wonderfully thought-provoking thread.

Angie · Post by **Angie** » Sat Jul 10, 2004 2:05 pm

His clapping makes me want to have a seizure. (i before e except after c? I dunno about that one)

Phong · Post by **Phong** » Sat Jul 10, 2004 2:08 pm

[quote="Angie";p="367380"]His clapping makes me want to have a seizure. (i before e except after c? I dunno about that one)[/quote]

This is English we're talking about, Angie. It isn't supposed to follow its own rules.

Angie · Post by **Angie** » Sat Jul 10, 2004 2:21 pm

I'm far too lazy to look it up.

Phong · Post by **Phong** » Sat Jul 10, 2004 2:26 pm

The whole bit goes

"I before E, except after C or when sounding like A as in neighbor or weigh"

Obviously, seizure doesn't follow the rule. It's one of those odd words, that was decended from Middle English, and the middle english word is decended from Old French.

So as is usually possible, We can blame the French.

TopCat · Post by **TopCat** » Sat Jul 10, 2004 2:29 pm

Google it then.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=U ... gle+Search

You got it right.

edit: ninjaed because I read deacons and such responses before getting down this far.

not my fault.

hey, watch this drive.

Angie · Post by **Angie** » Sat Jul 10, 2004 2:30 pm

We can blame the French.

HAHAHA. Cheers.

I just read the whole arminius/azurian/haggy debate in PACE.

I think Michael Moore should come spoof quebec separatists.

Deacon · Post by **Deacon** » Sat Jul 10, 2004 3:25 pm

[quote="StruckingFuggle";p="367309"]Well F.M.R. ... As I said -I withdraw my complaints about the timing, but I still think the actual method of response is still worthy of protest.[/quote]
Is it worthy of being "pissed"? If I were you, I would be more pissed at Moore for his manipulation and deception.

An already kind of addressed point, but an observation about it: The "Bush should have sat there, which he did, instead of rushing out the door" is a good example of a false dichotomy, as those are not the only two choices. As I said, he could have politely and calmly excused himself saying he needed to deal with important matters (instead of something so incredibly insignifigant as a PR Photo Op)

No, seriously, I'm very surprised at what a big deal (mountain) some people have managed to make out of this (mole hill). I can only assume that it somehow symbolically confirms some sort of prejudice against the man. If he had gotten up from his chair 5 minutes earlier, would he have stopped any of the planes? Prevented a death? Or what, "appeared more presidentail" somehow? Chris Hitchens writes, "But if he had done any such thing then (as he did with his "Let's roll" and "dead or alive" remarks a month later), half the Michael Moore community would now be calling him a man who went to war on a hectic, crazed impulse. The other half would be saying what they already say—that he knew the attack was coming, was using it to cement himself in power, and couldn't wait to get on with his coup."

EvilPanda · Post by **EvilPanda** » Sat Jul 10, 2004 4:48 pm

Micheal Moore is just as stupid as Bill O'Reilly or Ann Coutler

BtEO · Post by **BtEO** » Sat Jul 10, 2004 4:52 pm

Assuming I'm right in thinking they're the left to his right (or is it: right to his left, I can never remember

) that's about what I think.
You've got Moore on one side, O'Reilly et al on the other. The truth lies somewhere in between and it's up to you to make up your own damn mind rather than steal someone else's opinions.

Xan · Post by **Xan** » Sat Jul 10, 2004 4:57 pm

Having seen a couple Michael Moore discussion-wars, such as those on Slashdot. I can't help to find the discussions slightly amusing. Personally I think Michael Moore does have a point with his movies. He hasn't claimed that he don't try to make them with his view on the politics.

Hhe do have a staff that does a background check on all the facts of which he had in the movie. Some anti-Moore zealots have been going on about how he's lying, using especially one scene as proof that his whole movie is false. The scene with one of the interviews in the movie of a politician sound. Sure, he did cut that scene together, using parts of different interviews with the same person. But it can hardly be called misleading, since it was so obvious it was a cut-to-gether scene. The anti-moore zealots state that it could only be seen by the changing tie, but it was so much more. The whole set changed, lightning and background. My point is, complain all you want about the things he do. But the fact remain, he does have his points and his movies are made as a personal statement of his own. If you don't like him, then don't watch it. It's not like the Bush Administration don't state the wrongs of their opponents?

Real Life Forums

Micheal Moore

Re: Micheal Moore

Who is online