Bowling for Columbine

[punky]

Originally Posted by Graham

So he's going to advertise things that don't fit in with his beliefs? Hmm, so I should take advertising from the Coalition of Decency or the Moral Minority who want to put anti-porn ads on my site...??

There's nothing that says you can't. I don't suppose you'll find an advert for MoveOn there, but that doesn't mean all advertisers have to be totally in line with his beliefs

Originally Posted by Graham

Oh, note where it says "Fight Socialism! Visit my Advertisers!"

So? He runs a right-wing blog. The clue is in the URL. What is wrong with supporting capitalism? I happen to like it.

Originally Posted by Graham

I really can't help you with that. Although given your opinionsof Moore, you're probably very unlikely to give him the benefit of the doubt.

And that is what he gets for being a liar. 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. I actually did watch F9/11 last night, and some of the things he said actually sounded half reasonable, but there were no sources. So i'm not believing it until I personally, or someone else independently verifies or debunks it either way.

Originally Posted by Graham

And *why* is that, do you think? People aren't interested? People aren't capable? Or maybe despite his tendency to exaggerate in some places, he *does* actually have a point?

Have a point? The first thing I thought about after BFC, aside from all the misleading bits and distortions, was that the whole film didn't have a point? It just meandered around and ended with no conclusion. Is it (gun violence) because of so many guns? No. Canada has more. Is it because of race issues? No, he walks around South Central LA (Although I hardly think that proves much). He goes on about music, etc. He never actually accuses anyone or anything as the source of the problem. Which is about right. because if the government knew the source of the problem, there would be no problem.

And why isn't our voice heard? We never really got media interest, it was all word of mouth, but now the press is picking up on it. So is Moore, as he now has a war cabinet of people to debunk things that are said on anti-moore sites. A lot of is to do people just not realising. Can you, hand on heart, say you knew that Charlton Heston's "cold dead hands" speech was said 8 months later in a different city? Did you notice the change in clothing and background? I'm guessing probably not, because that wasn't what Moore wanted you to think. I certainly though that Heston said it 3 days after Columbine. Of course then I found MooreWatch, who provides dated transcripts of the speechs on independent sites, and says look closely for the clothing change. Also, a lot of Moore fans are blissfully unaware of Moore's distortions and like to remain that way. They won't even listen to the other side. It always makes me laugh. They always accuse anti-Moore guys of having closed minds, yet theirs is open just enough to listen to more, but not quite enough to listen to anyone who has an opinion against him.

Originally Posted by Graham

Great, so he's criticising Bush, but frankly that's like shooting fish in a barrel.

You're flexible. You desrise him because you though he liked Bush, now you derise him because he doesn't.

Originally Posted by Graham

But what he's *actually* saying is "get rid of Bush and get us a more credible Republican leader" and that's a different matter.

Why the hell can't people be republican? Because you aren't? I don't agree that Tony Blair will do the UK any good in the next four years, but that doesn't mean i'll attack anyone that does support Labour.

Originally Posted by Graham

As to the gun from the bank thing, the point is that a gun has *NO* constructive use! Guns are for *wounding* and *killing* people, they have no other credible use (target shooting etc is just practicing the skills you need). Blenders *do* have constructive uses.

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.

Originally Posted by punky

There's nothing that says you can't. I don't suppose you'll find an advert for MoveOn there, but that doesn't mean all advertisers have to be totally in line with his beliefs

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? He runs a right-wing blog. The clue is in the URL. What is wrong with supporting capitalism? I happen to like it.

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

And that is what he gets for being a liar. 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.

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?

some of the things he said actually sounded half reasonable, but there were no sources. So i'm not believing it until I personally, or someone else independently verifies or debunks it either way.

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

Have a point?

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

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.

And why isn't our voice heard? We never really got media interest,

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

They won't even listen to the other side. It always makes me laugh. They always accuse anti-Moore guys of having closed minds, yet theirs is open just enough to listen to more, but not quite enough to listen to anyone who has an opinion against him.

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

Why the hell can't people be republican? Because you aren't?

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

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

All those anti-moore sites have clear right wing beliefs. I have read a lot of impartial reviews of the film and reviews of the actual content and independent sources have said that he was usually correct and 'offered convincing evidence to back up his claims'

It hard to get a clear view but moore provides independent sources so i trust him a lot more

[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.

[Richard M]

Well I just watched 9/11, it was not quite as shocking as BFC but still some things were pretty nasty to watch, like the US soldiers getting bombed etc.
It's not that hard hitting to me personally because I've seen a lot of documentaries about 911, Bush, the Iraq war etc and I know what the Bush regime is like (look for something called "Bush Family Fortunes" by the BBC) - that said, some things that were revealed in 9/11 were pretty scary.
No doubt the FBI are watching Michael Moore's every move now...

Originally Posted by Richard M

Well I just watched 9/11, it was not quite as shocking as BFC but still some things were pretty nasty to watch, like the US soldiers getting bombed etc.
It's not that hard hitting to me personally because I've seen a lot of documentaries about 911, Bush, the Iraq war etc and I know what the Bush regime is like (look for something called "Bush Family Fortunes" by the BBC) - that said, some things that were revealed in 9/11 were pretty scary.
No doubt the FBI are watching Michael Moore's every move now...

tut tut you should know now that they help terrorists to kill other terrorists then kill those terriorists with some terrorists. Thats how it works they will get the saudis to get moore then they will get iran to get the saudis then Afghanistan to get Iran and so on

[punky]

Originally Posted by Richard M

Well I just watched 9/11, it was not quite as shocking as BFC but still some things were pretty nasty to watch, like the US soldiers getting bombed etc.

That's what I can't really understand. I mean, we all know war is horrible. People die. Bombs cause horrific damage to people and buildings. Is there any real value in showing what we already know? To me it is almost like preaching to the converted. If you watch someone being beheaded, does it make the act worse than if you were merely told about it? I just put it down to filler and trying to wear peoples minds down.

[Richard M]

Originally Posted by punky

That's what I can't really understand. I mean, we all know war is horrible. People die. Bombs cause horrific damage to people and buildings. Is there any real value in showing what we already know? To me it is almost like preaching to the converted. If you watch someone being beheaded, does it make the act worse than if you were merely told about it? I just put it down to filler and trying to wear peoples minds down.

Well actually there was a beheading in the film, I won't describe it here but I think that showing the graphic, violent side can "wake people up" sometimes, i.e. the Bush supporters who think he can do no wrong.

Originally Posted by punky

That's what I can't really understand. I mean, we all know war is horrible. People die. Bombs cause horrific damage to people and buildings. Is there any real value in showing what we already know? To me it is almost like preaching to the converted. If you watch someone being beheaded, does it make the act worse than if you were merely told about it? I just put it down to filler and trying to wear peoples minds down.

Because we all know war is shocking but we cant put a face to the victims or anything so it does not get to you. It is all very well saying war is bad but until you see the actuall horrors you have no idea.

If you SEE a victim, if you SEE the violence, it brings it home and suddenly the horror is right in your face! I think moore showing that was a stroke of film genius excellent way to show the horror of war and to affect the audience

We all know how bad World war one and two where but we cannot imagine what it must have been like for those fighting.

Originally Posted by Damien

Because we all know war is shocking but we cant put a face to the victims or anything so it does not get to you. It is all very well saying war is bad but until you see the actuall horrors you have no idea.

If you SEE a victim, if you SEE the violence, it brings it home and suddenly the horror is right in your face! I think moore showing that was a stroke of film genius excellent way to show the horror of war and to affect the audience

We all know how bad World war one and two where but we cannot imagine what it must have been like for those fighting.

Damien, what you see on the tv is NOT as horrific as seeing it first hand mate. Trust me on this one. Even though the picture's on tv can show some of the trauma of combat. Actually being on a two way range is much more disturbing. I was out in the Gulf for part one of the Iraq War, in 91, 92. Then in Northern Iraq protecting the Kurds in late 92/ 93, and the Bosnia in 92/ 93.

In Gulf 1 I was assigned to help the Yanks to help open the main Kuaite City - Basra Highway. Which you will possibly remember as the 'Highway Of Death', now there was a charnell house. To stop the Iraq's retreating the US Airforce dropped 500lb snakes (dumb iron bombs) on the front of the traffic heading north to Iraq. After that they followed up with air strikes using CBU's (Cluster Bomb Units). I'll tell you straight mate, I've seen enough boddies, and parts of boddies to last me a lifetime. But no matter how horrible a shot on tv, or film, it cannot compare to the real deal. It's not just the sight, but also the stench of rotting, burned bodies, fecies (sp) but also the smell of burnt clothes, burnt tyres and plastic. Bloody horiffic mate.

Edit - although there was something disturbingly beautiful about the burning oilwells.

Originally Posted by Earl of Bronze

Damien, what you see on the tv is NOT as horrific as seeing it first hand mate. Trust me on this one. Even though the picture's on tv can show some of the trauma of combat. Actually being on a two way range is much more disturbing. I was out in the Gulf for part one of the Iraq War, in 91, 92. Then in Northern Iraq protecting the Kurds in late 92/ 93, and the Bosnia in 92/ 93.

In Gulf 1 I was assigned to help the Yanks to help open the main Kuaite City - Basra Highway. Which you will possibly remember as the 'Highway Of Death', now there was a charnell house. To stop the Iraq's retreating the US Airforce dropped 500lb snakes (dumb iron bombs) on the front of the traffic heading north to Iraq. After that they followed up with air strikes using CBU's (Cluster Bomb Units). I'll tell you straight mate, I've seen enough boddies, and parts of boddies to last me a lifetime. But no matter how horrible a shot on tv, or film, it cannot compare to the real deal. It's not just the sight, but also the stench of rotting, burned bodies, fecies (sp) but also the smell of burnt clothes, burnt tyres and plastic. Bloody horiffic mate.

Edit - although there was something disturbingly beautiful about the burning oilwells.

I wasnt say that it isnt. I was saying that war is suddenly a lot more shocking when you see the violance and you can attach a face and person to that pain.

Seeing it on TV is more shocking than hearing about was the point i was making on punky but seeing it in real life is more shocking but we where talking about film

Originally Posted by punky

So?

Oh go back and *read* the bloody thread again

I think you're taking an off hand humourous joke a bit too far.

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

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,

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

but he's not.

Again, where's your proof of this?

I don't believe unquestioningly what they said, but at least they provide sources.

So does Moore.

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.

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

Contrast that with F9/11. There were virtually no sources whatsoever.

I haven't seen it, so I can't comment.

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.

"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!

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.

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"

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

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

The point is you weren't specific about who this "we" was and there was no context to base a conclusion on.

Why are you always assuming i'm trying to attack you?

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.

You take everything I say, about Moore, Bush, pro and anti-Moore guys as some kind of personal attack against you.

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

If you're included in that group, great. If you aren't great. Either way, im not bothered.

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!

It doesn't make what I say any less true.

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

Suffice to say if I wanted to turn this into a fight, i'd find something a bit more hurtful to say.

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

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

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

I'm not dragging you anywhere. Stop trying to lump everything on me. I'm talking about how Moore is a liar,

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.

Incidently, you started the point about guns in society, not me.

"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.

[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.

Originally Posted by punky

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

So you admit your comment was based solely on your *opinion*, not facts.

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?

No, it wasn't a joke as far as I could see. Starting a joke with the words "I know you'd like to believe..." makes it sound like a personal attack.

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?

Taxi! Follow those goalposts!!

You are confusing had and have? Everyone knows Saddam had weapons, because he, you know, used them.

Yes, *had* past tense. But what he may have had the past was *not* a justification for invading *now*.

I didn't move the goalposts. If you actually look at my post, I responded to your point, in the second paragraph

Whilst ignoring the *prior context*. Hence: Moved goalposts.

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.

No, that's *your* opinion of what he has said.

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

Funny, I could have sworn that's exactly what I *did* do...

[QUOTE]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.

Punky, you really need to learn something about the nature of debate.

You seem to consider that someone disagreeing with you is automatically being "confrontational", but you don't seem to understand that I debate *points* not "personalities".

I do *NOT* "attack people", I have not "attacked" you. The only thing I have "attacked" are your false assumptions, your attempts to put words into my mouth and your taking points out of context to try to make a point.

I do not, despite what you claim, "try to turn every friendly discussion into a virtual fist fight" I most certainly have not treated anyone "like a piece of s**t" and I will thank you not to make comments like that again otherwise I will find it necessary to make an official complaint about *your* personal attacks on me!

If you wish to discuss this further I suggest you put it in a PM instead of a public forum.

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.

And again you miss out the context in which the original remark was posted

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.

You can back this up with cites? NB *I* have never said "Why can't that bank offer something other than guns?"

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.

What was that expression? Oh yes: "That's a bit rich...!" You want *me* to stop "trying to assassinate my character and personality" (something which I have never done, nor would stoop to) but you couch that in a personal attack on *my* character and personality "I fully expect you to ignore me"


Paging Messers Pott and Kettle-Black.

[SOSAGES]

couldnt see it posted so i figured why not:
http://www.michaelmoorehatesamerica....ailer_lrg.html