Re: Bowling for Columbine
 

They are not bothered at moore but if they attack him and bring his personality to the head of the argument meaning the issues he raises doesnt get discussed

The right wing (i.e bush) would rather attack moore on his personality because they dont want to face the issues ahead of the election

Re: Bowling for Columbine
 

I don't think he hates Americans because he calls them stupid, he hates the stupidity of the general population. I.e. he hates the general ignorance.

I hate the British sport mob mentality but does that mean I hate Britain?

Re: Bowling for Columbine
 

i have noticed that its mostly euros chatting about mm's films americans are fed up with it all and know it all i suspect

Re: Bowling for Columbine
 

Are you kidding? they all seem to be talking about it over there

Re: Bowling for Columbine
 

It isn't about politically motivated attacks. The book i'm reading has articles by left wing commentators. What he does is wrong wether you are you are left or right. Being forthright and honest doesn't have a political party (or shouldn't have)

I think his personality is really important as to his bellicosity. I am reading a book about Moore atm, and when you read the early stuff, (his work at Mother Jones, TV Nation), it does bring up a fascinating insight into how he works.

I don't agree with the whole "fat attack" that some people who criticise do. (And yeah that is mostly right-wingers that do that), wether he lies or not, his weight shouldn't come into it).

Re: Bowling for Columbine
 

The issues are true enough and should not be dismissed

Re: Bowling for Columbine
 

I already said though, it isn't my style. I'm like Incog, if someone says something bad, i'll just tut and shake my head, and move on. Don't want to be accused of censorship either ;)


No, if that was the case, he'd say it at the same time. I.e. "England is both a liberal and conservative country due to hisheavy multicultural mix". He says things like: "America is so conservative because of ...." and the in another chapter he will say: "America is so liberal because of....". I'll post my response to your addendum here, as it is more relevent here. The reason why I backtracked a bit is because it is so difficult to tie Moore to anything. I said he was a versatile fella, but that is an understatement. Since I found out that what he said were lies, and I fell for it, i've kind of made it life's work at the moment to find out as much as I can about him. For the last year, i've read so much about him. That is a lot of material (one reason it is so hard to find where I saw a particular quote or something). Now, i'd say Moore is X because of Y... After I post that, I rememeber that in a previous book or movie, he said something completely different which contradicts what I have said. I said he hates Americans because of the way he attacks them, but then I rememebered he said something a while ago, which said he loved them. Wether it is deliberate on his part or not, you can't accuse him of something, as the opposite would also be true somewhere.


It may have been an assumption, but it was based on experience. I posted you some Moorewatch stuff, and you treated it with disdain. You could have a totally different outlook if you read something new on Moorewatch, but I doubt it. If you want i'll keep providing links to them when it is relevent.


I'm trying to find where I saw it, but see my above point. It is hard trying to find what commentators said, when that is the only lead I have. What I would also say though is this: It is what Moore wants you to think, by offering guns. You think when you see that, that apart from 'America being a gun-nut country', why can't the bank offer something a bit more constructive?


At the risk of sounding patronising, (which I don't want to do, but can't avoid it), that is the way the world works. He needed funding. People (personal benefactors not large corporations like Disney) will normally only provide funding to people who share their views. Wilson almost shut the film down about 3 times due to lack of money. Unlike Moore, he had noone to sue to make money to fund a film. I prefer a partially relevent film to be released rather than no film released at all.

No, he says that as well. When he goes to Canada, he always says, something along the lines of "Thank God i'm now in a sane safe country", etc. Valid point about attacking his character. Is it fair? Ordinarily I would say no, but Moore attacks everyone elses character, so I would say yes. If you want an example, i'll give you one. I found it out last night and Moore had sunk to a new low.

If you normally gloss over our big posts, I implore you to read this part anyway

A man called Joe Scarborough criticised Moore. Nothing too out of the ordinary, just the usual Heston speech editing, etc. Moore goes ballistic at anyone who criticises him and goes into attack mode. He dug, and dug for dirt, but eventually found out that a woman died in his office. She died of a heart-attack. When Moore found this out, he started up the website: joescarboroughkilledhisintern.com (see the whois here for proof. It is registered to his production company, Dog Eat Dog films in NY. The admin's email is on the michaelmoore.com domain.) Then he preceded to tell people in speeches just that. It isn't clear wether Moore did this before or after the coroners report, but either way it is dispicable. Accusing an innocent man of murder because he criticised your work? And then he poured scorn over the coroner in speeches making him seem incompetent. Even if Moore didn't distort the facts in his book and movies, and I agreed with them, this kind of stunts would make me detest him for life.

You mis-understood me. I meant Americans as in two or more Americans. I didn't say "all Americans" or "Americans in general", etc. He doesn't hate every American, but he does hate some. I'll skip over the next point as it is the same.

The movie title was fixed before he had to change funding sources. Changing the title, was out as it would have killed what little publicity they had. So it lead to the unusual situation that the movie title no longer reflected the tone of the film. He was trying to get Moore for an interview long before the title was set in place. I think it was actually Moore's avoidance of Wilson that lead Wilson to the title and the tone of his movie. Besides, even if he didn't, Moore said "anyone, anytime", and he other places, he said he loves debating "right-wing conservatives" even better. He can talk the talk, but can't walk the walk.

Re: Bowling for Columbine
 

He does debate with people though!

Also when he was asked for a interview the guy said he was making a film called moorehatesamerica and moore said he wouldnt answer him because he had just been slandered! it is in his own bloody trailer!

The film is just saying how 'good' the usa is, it is filled with people saying stuff about the american dream THATS all they say they keep going on about patriotic stuff without any examples just the normal ramblings about freedom and being successful trying to gloss over some important issues about gun control, media and poverty. At least moore uses his films to push this important issues this guy is making a patriotic film that also attacks moore.

He is just attacking moore for no real reason, there is nothing to be gained by saying how bad moore is. There is a lot to be gained by trying to being up important issues

Yet again those we should be talking about the ISSUES raised in the film instead of moore himself. AM i gonna have to start a different topic here?

Re: Bowling for Columbine
 

Well, the footage Wilson has will tell us either way.

I wouldn't say that was a down side. Most people go on talk shows knowing X chat show host would give them a rough time. I would have thought he would have been happy to get on tape and make Wilson look bad, and kill the movie. Now, Wilson has "Roger & Me" style footage, which could hurt Moore.

I wouldn't say no reason. IMO Moore, through his actions before, deserves anything that really come his way, be it personal, or political. Moore is a bit unusual in that his persona is bigger than his movies. That means personal attacks on him would be more common.

You have a point. I know a few of us opinionated guys are probably a bit tired of rehashing gun control, violence in the media etc. I'm certainly not looking forward to it and might bow out if I have to go all through that again. We just thought it is was 'fresher' to debate Moore's credibility instead.

Can I just say though, thanx for what you said about reading my opinions and agreeing with them (most of the time). I do wonder sometimes if its worth it all. Thanx for saying that. :)

Re: Bowling for Columbine
 

I dont like Wilson i think he is a **** who is covering up the issues raised and is making a film to cash in on the anti-moore feeling and is doing the same old patriotic crap that makes me sick. He is going around dismissing all the moore trys to point out about media and guns and stopping war by talking to people about how good the country is? I accept it is a good place to live but why cant they face up to the problems raised by moore?

Look at all the people in his film and why they say they love america it is the same old rubbish that keeps getting spouted out.

"if a man has a house, and he looks after his house then he can be somebody"

"We have the freedom to go to school"

?????

Isn't that the same in all western countries?

At least moore raises important issues. This guy is just making money by appealing to the patriotic american. There is nothing to learn here, he is not making a valid point...isnt that what documentaries are? Arent they meant to inform?

Re: Bowling for Columbine
 

he has a right to point out what moore lies about - people will watch the doc and belive everything is true its a shame

Re: Bowling for Columbine
 

Apparently F9/11 is being released in the UK on Friday:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertain...lm/3879197.stm

Re: Bowling for Columbine
 

What does he lie about? When has he been caught lying

Re: Bowling for Columbine
 

oh cant be bothered to go over it again but its in the forum somewhere maybe even this thread -

Re: Bowling for Columbine
 

Ah, I must have been reading messages in this thread by someone else called "Punky" then... :rolleyes:

Objecting to a personal attack != Censorship.

I'm sorry, but I don't follow the logic of this at all. Just because he *doesn't* say something like "England is both a liberal and conservative country due to hisheavy multicultural mix" in the *same* chapter, but addresses different points in different chapters he is (as far as I can tell from what you're implying) contradicting himself.

This seems to me to be more like him not trying to confuse people by including too many points in one place.

But Moore has *NEVER* said *HE* "hates Americans"! This is something which *others* have said about him.

Yes, I treated the stuff on Moorewatch with disdain because it is being written from a biased viewpoint. If you can post links from a credible, *impartial* source, I will be happy to read them.

In which case it can't be that much of a "big thing", can it?

No, that's your *opinion* of what *you* think Moore wants you to think.

No, I think it's irresponsible for a bank to be offering guns, full stop.

And at the risk of sounding rude: BALDERDASH!!

Who was it who said in post #18 of this thread" "Why have principles when you can have money instead?"

Or in post #51 "If he hated America, he leave his rather nice $1.9m Manhatten apartment, and his $1.2m Michigan lakeside home, and move to Canada or Germany, or even to England, like he is always threatening. Or that is what he'd do if he had principals, which he doesn't."

And I prefer someone to be honest and true enough to their principles to stick it out, not sacrifice their principles for money!

Ah, now we're back with the "he started it" arguments...

I hope the "you" you are referring to here is to *other* readers of this post, otherwise I would find the implication in this comment to be extremely offensive.

An interesting example. Now let's add a few more facts.

Joe Scarborough is a former Republican Congressman and is now a talk-show host on MSNBC. From some googling on his name it appears that his opinions are of the sort that George W Bush can do no wrong and Michael Moore is the Devil incarnate.

He is a former Congressman because he decided not to stand for re-election after his intern was found dead.

Now whilst I'm all for giving someone the benefit of the doubt and a fair trial, this is a strange confluence of events.

He is also quoted from an interview:

* * * * *

SCARBOROUGH: When he has time for you, just tell him to stop going around calling me a murderer or I`m going to have to call my lawyers. Will you do that for me?

GOLDBERG: Well, I`m sure you can get to him yourself, Joe, but I appreciate you having me on. I really do.

* * * * *

Now *WHY* is he asking an *INTERVIEWER* to tell Michael Moore something? If he has been slandered by falsely accused of murder, why aren't his lawyer slapping injunctions on Moore left, right and centre?

For more about the story of her alledged murder (or, rather the lack of it...) see http://www.americanpolitics.com/20010808Klausutis.html

(I'm not sure, but that site does appear to have a Democratic bias, however it does make some interesting points anyway)

Well given the lack of reporting as detailed in the above link, it's not surprising he had to "dig and dig"

Well that, too, seems somewhat open to question.

And this is "proof"? It may be true, however it *could* also be a "Joe Job" by someone who wants to stitch Moore up.

But again I point out from the above link, that its *NOT JUST* Moore who is doing this.

I agree that it is distasteful, but I think it's not quite as one-sided as you just portrayed it.

Pardon me if the following sounds like a personal attack, but that comment, to me, sounds like what is generally known as "a weasel".

If you meant "some Americans" or "one or two Americans taken together you should have said so or, at least, chosen your words with more care.

I wasn't talking about the *movie* title! I was talking about him standing up at an event Michael Moore was at and *saying* those words!

That is *not* a good way to start a debate.

And you make another sweeping generalisation to finish. You pick *one* example (and a poor one for the reason above) and try to parlay it into a general case.