[punky]

Originally Posted by Graham

Sorry? What evidence is there that his comment is "an off hand humourous joke"?

None, but if I ever find out he is running a right-wing-anti-socialist-militia, i'll appologise.

Originally Posted by Graham

And once again Punky tries to put words into my mouth...

That was a joke. Taking what you said to absurdium for comedic value. The joke being if he is right-wing he must be evil, trying to crush socialism, right? Incidently, he said "Fight Socialism", because he believes Capitalism is the way to go. If I said "Fight Racism" because I think tolerance is the way to go, you wouldn't attack that, would you?

Originally Posted by Graham

Again, where's your proof of this?

I read his blog most days, so I would have found out by now, I would have though. I really doubt he is, I said it as a joke. But if he ever does, i'll let you know.

Originally Posted by Graham

So does Moore.

Yeah, right. One of the big criticisms anti-Moore folk tell Moore is "what are his sources?". It makes it nigh on impossible trying to trace wether what he said is a true and accurate reflection, or not. In his "wacko attackos" (Yeah, we have a different point of view, so we must be violent lunatics, real mature) letter, he eventually started to give his 'sources'. I use inverted commas because they don't resemble any sources i've seen. They are like "CDC". That is an organisation, not a source. It doesn't mean anything. A date, publication title, and an author would make it a source.

Originally Posted by Graham

It was "common knowledge" that Iraq had WMDs...

You are confusing had and have? Everyone knows Saddam had weapons, because he, you know, used them. The UN spent 12 years trying to get at them. And if you mean have? Well, i'd hardly call the US and UK secret services, "common knowlege".

Originally Posted by Graham

"What the...? *THIS* is "What the...": "I fell for his crap once, and i'm not going to do it again willingly. When someone gets caught deliberately misleading, then they lose all trust privleges."

Now that's not just *being a little more cynical next time* this is "I'm not going to do it again", which is just slightly different!

I was slightly cynical about 2 chapters into "Stupid White Men". By the end of that wonderful work of fiction called "Bowling For Columbine", I'd heard so many distortions, lies, inaccuracies, I was way past slightly cynical.

Originally Posted by Graham

Yes, that's what I said and yes, that's what I meant. You then tried to shift the goalposts (and all the big *sighs* you give won't change that) by, as I said, talking about the film "lacking direction" rather than referring to your original comment that "There isn't a very big side that debunks his myths" to which I responded "[...] maybe [...] he *does* actually have a point"

I didn't move the goalposts. If you actually look at my post, I responded to your point, in the second paragraph, and made an additional one (which I put first only because I thought of it first), because it was at the time relevent. And funny. Just "Point" and "BFC" don't really go together.

Also, he has never made "a point" about us trying to discredit him, aside from calling us "wackos", and if you listen to him, apparently most of America are Stupid White Men, evil anti-Moore conservatives, etc.

Originally Posted by Graham

If you're going to take things out of context like this, I'm going to point it out.

No context? I only used the term "anti-Moore guys". The whole paragraph was about it.

Originally Posted by Graham

I refer you to my recent PM where I explained that I've been doing this too long to be fooled by this sort of thing.

Actually, your PM just said the same thing reworded. You didn't explain anything.

Originally Posted by Graham

No, you sling mud around and, as you say immediately after:

...

You don't *care* who gets hit by the mud you sling around willy-nilly and seem to think that if anyone gets hit by it, it's *their* fault for getting in the way!

...

Sorry, did I *say* you wanted to "turn this into a fight"? Oops, no, I didn't...

That is rich coming from you isn't it? Whose discussional tone is confrontational on an easy day. Who tries to turn every friendly discussion into a virtual fist fight? Who derises anyone who belives in something other than you. Who treats virtually everyone like a piece of s**t?

I don't know what planet you are on but I am very much the opposite. Regardless of people, I refuse to attack them, even if their opinions are way out of line. Even if someone was fanatically racist, I wouldn't agree with them, but I still wouldn't attack them for it. Unlike you I don't like going round picking fights, life's too short.

Originally Posted by Graham

No, it doesn't make what you say *true* full stop. You make sweeping generalisations and then act all surprised when people get annoyed.

No I make a point. If you agree, great. I you don't, also great. Incidently, BFC was built on sweeping generalisations, which is one reason anti-Moore guys have a problem with it.

Originally Posted by Graham

I refer the honourable gentleman to the evidence given by the examples in this message, not to mention those in the previous ones...

Just because you say something, doesn't make it true. I denied it then and deny it now.

Originally Posted by Graham

No, you said (once more I quote your exact words)"

"Incapacitating someone who has entered your home and is willing to use a weapon on you, and cause you're family harm is a pretty credible use i'd say. There are a lot of things, that to me, have no constructive or credible use. That doesn't mean I should stop other people from enjoying them responsibly."

This is *not* talking about Moore *or* his being a "liar". This is a discussion point about whether a certain use of a gun is "credible" or not and whether you should "stop other people from enjoying them responsibly" or not.

That is why I declined to comment on it.

I like how you always flip perspectives whenever it suits you. You bring up the original point, that "Guns aren't constructive to society". So I say: "Yes they are", and give an example, just for clarity. Suddenly i'm the one who is veering from the topic? I just inverted what you said.

Originally Posted by Graham

"Oh, but Sir, SIR! He started it, Sir!"

I brought up that point because it was *IN RELATION* to BFC and obtaining a gun from a bank. You then, again, tried to shift the point by bringing blenders into the discussion which was completely irrelevant which was what I was trying to point out.

No, blenders aren't irrelevent. The point was, to open up that CD you could choose many items, not just guns. On of the big things that Moore fans say, is that "Why can't that bank offer something other than guns?". Well, it does. Moore doesn't like to tell you that though, because it weakens his argument somewhat.

Now, I fully expect you to ignore me, but we can keep this thread on BFC and Moore, and less of you trying to assassinate my character and personality? Thanx.