[punky]

Originally Posted by Graham

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

I have always tried to have been nice to you back in the face of such agressive sarcasm and derision. I do have a limit though. Also, I have never red repped or reported your post (and no, that isn't a dig at you from before).

Originally Posted by Graham

Objecting to a personal attack != Censorship.

I was just having a laugh, hence the wink.

Originally Posted by Graham

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.

These are polar points though. They are mostly mutually exclusive. Besides Moore has a long history of massaging the evidence to fit the thesis. Like the Heston speeches. And the bit with Heston at the end.

Originally Posted by Graham

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

He says a lot of things. It is hard to find quotes without knowing the exact words. I know it was said in a speech in Germany but I can't find a transcript of it. One thing to bear in mind though, he never says it directly to Americans. I think even ardent Moore fans would be repulsed by Moore preaching anti-American hate to them directly.

Originally Posted by Graham

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.

Something coming from a biased or unbiased source doesn't dictate wether it is true or not. Merely the amount of spin. Most people have an agenda. Moore has an agenda, does that mean you aren't to trust him either?

Originally Posted by Graham

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

The trouble is with anti-Moore sites is they all seem to be run as a blog, so older stuff gets pushed to the bottom and harder to find. It doesn't help that I read a lot of stuff on lots of sites. Some sites push one point, others push another. It isn't all that organised. I do the best I can to find stuff to back up what I say. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter to me. I believe what I believe. If I was trying to recruit an army, i'd be more concerned about evidence. I'm not trying to brainwash anyone. I'll defend my beliefs, but never try and impose them on people.


[quote=Graham
No, that's your *opinion* of what *you* think Moore wants you to think.[/quote]
Yep. That is my intrepretation of it, and not just mine.

Originally Posted by Graham

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

It is a fully licensed gun shop. It sounds weird because it is a bank, but they are perfectly legally entitled to sell/give away guns from that branch.

Originally Posted by Graham

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."

Wilson and Moore aren't even in the same ballpark. Wilson is still producing the film he wants to, albeit even if he has to push another angle, he'd rather not. I mean this isn't a promo for MoveOn. I'm guessing the Wilson thinks the movie would have the desired effect, even if it isn't done with the desired method. There is a lot at stake for him as an aspiring film-maker. A bad movie could kill his career before it started. I doubt, based on that he'd release a film he wasn't happy with or he wanted on his reputation. I could even be wrong, it could just be a conincidence. Or maybe he always wanted to make an American feelgood movie, but pushed the Moore angle for publicity maybe.

Originally Posted by Graham

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

If Wilson produced a pro-Moore, or MoveOn movie i'd agree with you. It seems to be a movie of two halves. The first half is about Moore, the second seems to be debunking the myth that America is a bad place to live, especially Moore's point in SWM, when he said: "You'll never be rich. The chances of becoming a millionaire are about one in a million" (So there are 250 millionaries in the US? I don't think so. Virtally all doctors alone will be true millionaires after a few years work given their salaries).

Originally Posted by Graham

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

Well of course Moore started it If he didn't we'd have nothing to talk about?


[quote=Graham
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.[/quote]

Yeah, I was talking to others. I know you go to great lengths and effort to read and reply. I'd admire your tenacity if nothing else. I get the feeling that some/most people here just automatically skip our long arguments/discussions. I thought this was particularly bad and worthy of a special note.

Originally Posted by Graham

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"

I kind of thought you'd bring up the fact he was a republican Congressman. Wether it was deliberate to try make people think of Gary Conduit and government conspiracies, I don't know. I didn't think it was relevent what his job was so I left it out. I didn't want anyone to prejudice him because he is was in office.

And anyway, what trial? The coroner signed the death as a heart attack. No inquest, no arrests. There was no evidence that the coroner had been influenced either. Although according to that site his reputation isn't that solid. Everyone seems to be happy, including her family. I'm sure if there was the case would have easily been re-opened.

Noone really reported it, because there was no story. It was a natural death. No foul play. People die all the time but we don't get to hear about them unless they are particularly suspicious or famous.

Originally Posted by Graham

Well that, too, seems somewhat open to question.

Well that is what the coroner said, and that makes it good enough for me. If someone has some credible evidence that the coroner may have been influenced by Scarbough, then by all means, i'll re-evaluate my thinking.

Originally Posted by Graham

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

Because I think he actually admitted it in the speeches he gave at the time. Besides, given how much Moore likes to sue people (He sued Mother Jones, then a struggling independent press magazine (not big like it is now), because of a disagreement of opinions, for $58,000, back before Roger & Me in the 80s), you'd think that would have traced and sued whoever owned it. It is also a crime to register a site with false information, so he'd have the law on his side too.

Originally Posted by Graham

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

Well, the site you gave me (only had time for a quick gloss over) seems just imply, in a pretty "safe" way that there may be some foul play at work that some people have overlooked. Questioning people isn't a bad thing, but directly (and falsely) accusing them of murder is something else.

Originally Posted by Graham

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.

Err cheers for that. I've been called much worse, i'm not going to lose sleep over it. I don't have much free time on the computer, especially here. It is bad enough with these huge posts, but if you are going to scrutinise the semantics of everything I say that closely then i'm not going to bother to even engage it. I don't have time or the inclination to even proof read my posts, let alone worry about semantics. Remember what I said before, can we please debate Moore, not me?

Originally Posted by Graham

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.

I think he is trying anything to dodge him. The movie will tell us how hard he tried to contact Moore, but that bit at Moore's speech wasn't the first time he tried to talk to Moore.

Originally Posted by Graham

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.

Not at all. He said he'd debate anyone. I'm desperately trying to find the quote where. I can even see the video in my head, he is on stage in a chair with like 4 other people.

I have an interesting post here to make about Moore. It'll suprise a few of you i'm sure. I'm just waiting for the webpage reference to go online, then i'll post it.