[punky]

Originally Posted by Graham

Why not? It's *his* site! He can pick and choose who gets to advertise on it and I doubt very much he's going to allow anyone who is *not* "totally in line with his beliefs" to do so!

So?

Originally Posted by Graham

He's not *talking* about "supporting capitalism" he's talking about *fighting socialism*! There's a difference!!

I think you're taking an off hand humourous joke a bit too far. I know you'd like to believe he is heading some right-wing conservative, capitalist militia hell bent on riding the world of socialists and communists, but he's not.

Originally Posted by Graham

So he's "lied" to you. And because *they're* against him, you're willing to believe what unquestioningly what they've said until someone proves them to have lied to you too?

I don't believe unquestioningly what they said, but at least they provide sources. David Hardy goes to great lengths to prove everything he says is true. Moorewatch always provides links, and very rarely just says something. If he does then it is normally common knowlege that can be accepted. Contrast that with F9/11. There were virtually no sources whatsoever. The only 2 I can rememeber was a brief screenshot of a BBC website, and uncensored copies of Bush's medical records. Everything else we are being forcefed and made to believe. It might be true, but probably isn't. I don't have time to go through every details one by one and either confirm or deny it, but other people do.

Originally Posted by Graham

Hang on, what happened to "lose all trust privileges"? Surely if you lost those, you wouldn't be trusted, full stop...!

What the...? Alright, if someone lies, it is rarely a one-off event. If someone lies then it isn't out of order to be just a little more cynical next time as to wether he is telling the truth or not. If I lie to you, then i'd expect you not to trust me next time, it is normal.

Originally Posted by Graham

Ah, I see the movable goalposts are back out of the cupboard again.

*Sigh*

Originally Posted by Graham

My comment that he may have a point was in response to "There isn't a very big side that debunks his myths" but suddenly it becomes about the film (in your opinion) lacking direction.

Wouldn't hurt to be a little more specific. You just said: "Or maybe despite his tendency to exaggerate in some places, he *does* actually have a point?" I'm assuming that "he" = Moore, and considering this topic is "Bowling For Columbine", unless you say otherwise that is what people will assume.

I even answered both sides of the question, what's the problem?

Originally Posted by Graham

Sorry, what's this "we" business, paleface?!

I'm not talking about you. I'm talking about the people who realise Moore lies, distorts, spins, etc.

Originally Posted by Graham

Sorry, you seem to have missed me with that big handful of mud you just slung around there. Want to try again??

Why are you always assuming i'm trying to attack you? You take everything I say, about Moore, Bush, pro and anti-Moore guys as some kind of personal attack against you. I'm just saying what I find funny. If you're included in that group, great. If you aren't great. Either way, im not bothered. It doesn't make what I say any less true. Suffice to say if I wanted to turn this into a fight, i'd find something a bit more hurtful to say.

Originally Posted by Graham

Ah, now we're onto the "putting words into Graham's mouth" part of the debate...!

*sigh* Of course I am Graham. Say that enough it might become true...

Originally Posted by Graham

As to the rest of this, I'm not going to get dragged into another gun control argument.

I'm not dragging you anywhere. Stop trying to lump everything on me. I'm talking about how Moore is a liar, and BFC is a fantastic work of fiction. I really don't have the time nor inclination to drag you into a well worn argument about gun control. Incidently, you started the point about guns in society, not me.