[punky]

Pardon my attitude in my post, but i've tried being nice to you, and asking you to do the same.

Originally Posted by Graham

So do I. When someone says "it isn't my style." and "I'll just tut and shake my head, and move on." and then blatantly contradicts themselves, I'm going to point this out!

I've already been through this. Furthermore could we, you know... Stick to the topic maybe?

Originally Posted by Graham

I would have thought "Moore" and "I hate Americans" shouldn't be too hard to find (unless you're overwhelmed by all those sites that *claim* he says that when he may not actually done so!)

It wouldn't be hard to find if I could remember some keywords from it.

Originally Posted by Graham

You are the one who said that "Moore has a long history of massaging the evidence to fit the thesis." but surely that doesn't dictate whether it's true or not either, does it?

Nice dodge. You took what I said, reworded it and said it back to me. Hmmm.

Originally Posted by Graham

Well pardon me if it *does* matter to me!

I'm not going to tell you what to think. I'll defend my beliefs against criticism but i'm not hell bent on trying to convince everyone to believe what I believe. Now, can we get back on the topic of Moore and BFC and not me?

Originally Posted by Graham

Fine, that's your choice, but I'm not going to accept it just for that reason alone.

I'm not asking you to accept it. I don't give a monkey's either way to be frank. I'm not going to lie in bed worrying: "Graham doesn't believe me when I said X...". Now lets get back on topic.

Originally Posted by Graham

Unlike, say, the Bush Administration? (Saddam has WMDs, Saddam has links to Al Qa'eda, Saddam has links to September 11th, Saddam is a threat to the USA...!)

You know, staying on topic might not be a bad idea? Just a thought.

Originally Posted by Graham

Does Moore do this, though? He's stating an opinion. He's not putting a gun to people's heads and saying *this is how it is*!

He's also not calling people "unpatriotic" for questioning the Republican/ Conservative/ All-American/ Bush/ Mom's Apple Pie line...!

Where did I say Moore tries to do this? Cites?

Originally Posted by Graham

You're right, they're not in the same ballpark. Moore produced the film *he* wanted to without having to pander to someone else's idea of what should be in it!

Yeah, and having millions in corporate sponsership helps doesn't it? Wilson also doesn't have the luxury to sue a poor, struggling, independent magazine because he was a bad editor.

Wilson has never indicated he made the film anything other than what he wanted.


[quote=Graham
Of course I'm bringing up that point because it's more than a little relevant! It was not that he was "in office" it was that he was a *Republican* ie one of the people that Moore "attacks". As I also pointed out, it's a little more complicated than the somewhat simplistic view you presented which seemed to be "Moore has a go at this ordinary bloke because he said something criticising him".[/quote]

No, the fact that he is/was republican has no relevence on wether he killed his intern or not. And it isn't more complicated. Noone said anything until Moore did, which happened after Scarborough criticised him. Moore (rather childishly, I think) decided to discredit Scarborough because he dared criticise him. If he hadn't criticised Moore then Moore wouldn't have said anything.

Originally Posted by Graham

"Isn't that solid" is being rather charitable, from my reading!

This is off topic of course, (as is most of our posts, but nevermind). Either way, the case is closed, everyone is happy.

Originally Posted by Graham

I don't think it's that easy to re-open such a case. There would be lots of objections and, IMO, possibly political pressure applied to deter such a thing from happening.

I believe all it takes is a call to the cororoner's office, with one new piece of evidence or angle on the case. And given the coroners history, it shouldn't be too hard i'd think. Let's get back on topic.

Originally Posted by Graham

But there probably won't be such evidence. The point is that what the coroner said was questionable and the circumstances were dubious.

Whether this equates to "murder" or not, I don't know, but to me it's not as cut-and-dried as you seem to want to think.

Obviously not questionable enough to concern the deceased person's family. Or anyone in the coroners office. Or in the state (I think, although I could be wrong, you don't have to connected with a report to object to and and re-open it, so long as you have some valid evidence. Now let's get back on topic.

Originally Posted by Graham

Again I point out that if you are going to engage in sweeping generalisations when you try to debate, I am going to point them out. If you are going to use careless wording (either accidentally or with deliberate intent to confuse or obfuscate) then I will point that out too.

I've already said, can we discuss Moore and BFC, and not me?

Originally Posted by Graham

And someone stands up and accuses him of "Hating America". Again I point out that this is hardly the way to start a resonable debate.

He avoided Wilson long before Wilson said what the title of his movie would be.

Now I know i'm as bad as you for reciprocating it, but I think it's high time we start trying to keep these posts on topic. I've indicated what points you've made that are nothing to do with Moore directly or BFC. That includes: me, wether Scarbough is a murderer (but not what Moore said about him, or what he said about Moore), Wilson, unless it has some direct link with Moore, etc.

Also, that post I said i'll make, it doesn't look like the document I wanted to refer to will come online at all, but i'll make it anyway either tonight or tomorrow.