Anyone who has credible evidence will not be ignored, no matter which cult they do or don't belong to. If they don't have credible evidence to back up their claims, they will be ignored (or laughed at). It's as simple as that.
My experience is quite different. People will ignore me, and mock me
Tyreth, you do not have credible evidence. That is why you are ignored and laughed at.
I tend to restrict my debates on slashdot
lol! You troll every single thread that mentions the word "evolution"!
Though you may think it clever to demand of me an outline of my problems to back up my original post, it by no means follows. I asked, "Is it unreasable for one to outline fundamental problems with the darwinist model?" The question asks nothing about whether such problems exist.
You sophist bastard, here's the original post:
And what of those religious folks who have genuine scientific objections, and who also would not accept darwinism even if they lost their faith? Are they to be ignored too? Or is it completely unreasonable for one to outline the fundamental problems with the darwinist model?
You claimed genuine scientific objections, then you say "oh! Poor me! I did not claim such problems existed!".
And before you start your standard "they mock me while I am oh so polite!" bitching, lets look at your half-disguised attacks/mockeries/insults from that post alone:
their childishness
listening ear (no matter how blocked it is)
you may think it clever
without sufficient depth
So stop the martyr act and either put up your "genuine scientific objections" or go back to church.
Aww jeez, who modded that flamebait as insightfull? Sigh...
If the theory of evolution has worked well for us -- even if this is arguable these days
Do I detect the scent of an evolution denier?
No. What he meant was: Evolution has worked well for us, though seeing all the idiots running around its arguable that evolving AIs will grow in intelligence.
It was a sort of joke, wich you did not get, and attacked, and now you've woken up the creationist trolls.
You have just been trolled. Every thread that mentions evolution, Tyreth is there, trolling away, going "wahh! waaaaaah! People don't respect my (loonie fundie idiotic) views!".
He's a very effective troll, he's learned to use big words that make him sound halfway rational, but you've been had (been there myself).
Watch for it, after a while he can't restrain himself and out comes the "but if we evolved from monkeys there is no right and wrong!" bullshit...moving the conversation away from science. Does it everytime.
The argument that some people make against Moore's works (and I haven't seen any of them so I have no opinion) is that he consciously presents evidence that is not true. That would disqualify those works from being documentaries.
These people disagree with the message and attack the messenger.
He uses historical documents, like footage from the security cameras in Columbine, footage from NRA meetings (edited to make Heston look like the biggest jerk in the world, but its still actual NRA-supplied footage, those are still words he said), etc.
The movies he makes are biased documentaries, but documentaries nonetheless. If you watch a documentary about Nazi Germany, you can bet that it will be biased against the Nazis. Does that disqualify it from being a documentary? No. It just means that its a biased documentary.
Pretty funny that Moore accuses anyone of being a "lazy reporter," and suggesting that he will "correct the record" -- when he has make a lucrative career of setting the record firmly crooked.
Dude, did you even read your own quoted texts?
In two places in Dude, Where's My Country?, Moore implicitly acknowledges mistakes in his earlier works.
[...] In his latest book, Moore finally gets it right, noting that the aid "was to be distributed by international organizations."
Choose, either lament that he is "setting the record firmly crooked", or that he acknowledges mistakes and sets the record straight.
And if you want want to bash him because he has made mistakes in his reporting (he's not a reporter, he's the first to admit that), then its a "he who ha never sinned" situation. What would Jesus do? He wouldn't vote for bush, that's for sure...
Godard's latest film, Notre Musique, premiered on Monday, the same day as Fahrenheit 9/11. Later in the week, Godard lashed out at Moore at a press conference, calling him "halfway intelligent." Godard went on to say that the Flint, Mich.-born director lacks subtlety.
What? His competitor his attacking him in the midst of his publicity high? What a shocker. Its not as if he had anything to gain by bashing him, not at all, no siree Bob!
And as far as the subtlelty...well, yeah. He's a fat loudmouth, no question there : )
Its a relly well done movie. The scenes are trully awesome, the editing is, as far as I remember, inpecable. Those Nazis sure had a great sense of style and aesthetics.
Doesn't make me a white supremascist. And I won't attack the obvious qualities of the film because it was funded by a genocidal maniac. In fact, that gives the movie a second level, on top of the message it was meant to send, you can see that a monster painted himself as a saviour. Its a fascinating historical document and should serve to show to people that propaganda is a powerful tool indeed.
No Child Left Behind Clean Forest Initiative Clean Air Act
Man, those sure sound good...I wonder if there is any past document that could show me that a monster can sugarcoat his actions in a veil of grandiose benevolence...hmmm...
He chose to make a big deal about it so that the film would get more attention.
That is true.
I would note that I, also, am not distributing any Moore films. Am I censoring Michael Moore?
Do you have distribution capabilities and are you actively refusing to rent these capabilities to Mr, Moore despite the obvious profitable nature of such an endavour?
Could somebody please explain to me how this is biased in favor of either political leaning?
The left opposed the war, the right approved. Sugar coating the condemnable actions of the soldiers during that war is of a right-wing political leaning because it is done in support of the war. Simple.
Bowling had much, much more than 10 seconds. And the bits he shot himself count as documents too (unless you think Cousteau shouldn't have won because he didn't use other people's footage? No? Ok then...).
Just because you disagree with the message of the documentary doesn't make it any less of a documentary.
he presents his work as documentary. That is a word with a specific meaning.
Main Entry: documentary Function: noun Inflected Form(s): plural -ries : a documentary presentation (as a film or novel)
Function: adjective 1 : being or consisting of documents : contained or certified in writing <documentary evidence> 2 : of, relating to, or employing documentation in literature or art;
Take the getting a free gun at the bank scene. In fact, the bank would give you a voucher that could be used at a gun store, once all the regular checks were done. The scene was completely staged - that makes it fiction, not documentary
The Truth: In the spring of 2001, I saw a real ad in a real newspaper in Michigan announcing a real promotion that this real bank had where they would give you a gun (as your up-front interest) for opening up a Certificate of Deposit account. They promoted this in publications all over the country - "More Bang for Your Buck!"
There was news coverage of this bank giving away guns, long before I even shot the scene there. The Chicago Sun Times wrote about how the bank would "hand you a gun" with the purchase of a CD. Those are the precise words used by a bank employee in the film.
When you see me going in to the bank and walking out with my new gun in "Bowling for Columbine" - that is exactly as it happened. Nothing was done out of the ordinary other than to phone ahead and ask permission to let me bring a camera in to film me opening up my account. I walked into that bank in northern Michigan for the first time ever on that day in June 2001, and, with cameras rolling, gave the bank teller $1,000 - and opened up a 20-year CD account. After you see me filling out the required federal forms ("How do you spell Caucasian?") - which I am filling out here for the first time - the bank manager faxed it to the bank's main office for them to do the background check. The bank is a licensed federal arms dealer and thus can have guns on the premises and do the instant background checks (the ATF's Federal Firearms database--which includes all federally approved gun dealers--lists North Country Bank with Federal Firearms License #4-38-153-01-5C-39922).
Within 10 minutes, the "OK" came through from the firearms background check agency and, 5 minutes later, just as you see it in the film, they handed me a Weatherby Mark V Magnum rifle
Anyway, the extend of this colorful editing job by Moore is covered very well in the link I provided above, and you can verify everything for yourself.
What I don't get is how I am expected not to have realised by myself that the movie was cleverly edited. AND at the same time I'm apparently expected to think he doesn't deserve a film-making award because his film was well edited. It baffles me.
Like the part where that wacko you linked to points out triumphantly that Heston is not wearing the same clothes (gosh!). I actually wondered when I saw the movie why he didn't crop it so that wouldn't show. Now I know, its was deliberate honesty. And yet there are some who latch on to that as proof of the contrary.
Of course Michael Moore doesn't show "both"side of the story. He shows his point of view. He's not a news outlet, he's a film maker. You are allowed to disagree and to not give him your money. But attacking him for speaking his mind...that's just wrong.
Also, some people attack the classification of "documentary". What is it if not a film that uses documents? Is it a drama? A comedy? A musical perhaps? It uses clips (documents), it is a documentary. That's the very definition.
His movies would be more credible if he didn't try to present them as documentaries. They're not documentaries. They're commentaries.
Unless, of course, they know the definition of documentary:
Main Entry: documentary
Function: noun Inflected Form(s): plural -ries : a documentary presentation (as a film or novel)
Function: adjective 1 : being or consisting of documents : contained or certified in writing <documentary evidence> 2 : of, relating to, or employing documentation in literature or art;
Does his movie employ documentation (film clips)? Yes?
So, let me get this straight? Disney commissions a Bush-bash-fest from Moore
Er, no.
Michael Moore decided to do a movie bashing Bush (hey, that's fun to say), Miramax helped (am not privy to the details). Once the movie was done, Miramax's corporate overlords, Buena Vista (owners of both Disney and Miramax), told Miramax that they were not allowed to distribute it (which I think is the part Miramax wanted to do).
if that's the case, why the hell did they commission the thing to begin with?
As you can see, its not the case. I think Michael Moore's company did the comissioning and producing bit, Miramax was supposed to do the "get the thing into theatres" bit. Buena Vista does the "no you don't, we bought you, you do as we say" censorship bit.
In no way could anyone with a proper measure of critical thinking call this a documentary.
Unless, of course, they know the definition of documentary:
Main Entry: documentary Function: noun Inflected Form(s): plural -ries : a documentary presentation (as a film or novel)
Function: adjective 1 : being or consisting of documents : contained or certified in writing <documentary evidence> 2 : of, relating to, or employing documentation in literature or art;
Does his movie employ documentation (film clips)? Yes?
Jesus H. Christ! How far to the extreme deep right are you exactly?
Example: When the U.S. troops invaded Bagdad, a CNN reporter stood outside a palace and commented that the soldiers were taking "souvenirs" from the palace. He even mentioned that most of those were solid gold.
Souvenirs? They were looting the palaces of the conquered! But since CNN is the Pentagon News Network, they spewed that outrageous piece of doubletalk with a straight face. He even seemed proud that these soldiers were looting!
I've enjoyed reading these inventions/mistakes about this "Michael Moore." I mean, who wouldn't want to fantasize about living in penthouses roughhousing with brothers you never had. But lately I've begun to see so many things about me or my work that aren't true. It's become so easy to spread these fictions through the internet (thanks mostly to lazy reporters or web junkies who do all their research by typing in "key words" and then just repeat the same mistakes). And so I wonder that if I don't correct the record, then all of the people who don't know better may just end up being filled with a bunch of stuff that isn't true.
I agree this (sic). I want to believe that Moore wants to crusade for the little guy, but he seems to benifit quite a bit from the corrupt system that he says he hates.
Yeah, his message has always been "its wrong to get paid for work you did", it sure wasn't "its wrong to destroy people's lives to make more money".
He also conviently forgets about the places he's exploited, like Flynt Michigan.
And its also wrong to move. You should never move to another town, especially not if your hometown is an economic wasteland ever since the company that employed most people moved out. Also, never ever go live near where you will find the talent you need for your company. New York is no place for a filmaker to live, Flint has plenty of cameramen and editors and everything a film company needs...
Disney made a decision as a private company and business that they will not produce and distribute a film.
The film is obviously already produced and they are ordering a company they bought to not distribute it. Their decision is motivated by political pressure, and they are willing to abandon profit in order to appease their Bush overlords (Jeb and Dubya).
a private company should not be able to pick and chose what it stands behind
Miramax picked it, Buena Vista, who bought Miramax some time ago, told 'em no.
I wonder what the shareholders will think of this. They invested in a company who decides to refuse profits, that isn't kosher. Of course, Eisner might be doing the only profitable thing: Protecting the theme park tax credits, in which case this is an instance of political censorship.
Either way, it is censorship, because no matter what your deficient education led you to believe, censorship is not something that only governments can do, nor is it only evil when governments do it.
Slashdot Mirror
Tyreth, you do not have credible evidence.
That is why you are ignored and laughed at.
I tend to restrict my debates on slashdot
lol! You troll every single thread that mentions the word "evolution"!
Though you may think it clever to demand of me an outline of my problems to back up my original post, it by no means follows. I asked, "Is it unreasable for one to outline fundamental problems with the darwinist model?" The question asks nothing about whether such problems exist.
You sophist bastard, here's the original post:
And what of those religious folks who have genuine scientific objections, and who also would not accept darwinism even if they lost their faith? Are they to be ignored too? Or is it completely unreasonable for one to outline the fundamental problems with the darwinist model?
You claimed genuine scientific objections, then you say "oh! Poor me! I did not claim such problems existed!".
And before you start your standard "they mock me while I am oh so polite!" bitching, lets look at your half-disguised attacks/mockeries/insults from that post alone:
So stop the martyr act and either put up your "genuine scientific objections" or go back to church.
Do I detect the scent of an evolution denier?
No.
What he meant was: Evolution has worked well for us, though seeing all the idiots running around its arguable that evolving AIs will grow in intelligence.
It was a sort of joke, wich you did not get, and attacked, and now you've woken up the creationist trolls.
You have just been trolled. Every thread that mentions evolution, Tyreth is there, trolling away, going "wahh! waaaaaah! People don't respect my (loonie fundie idiotic) views!".
He's a very effective troll, he's learned to use big words that make him sound halfway rational, but you've been had (been there myself).
Watch for it, after a while he can't restrain himself and out comes the "but if we evolved from monkeys there is no right and wrong!" bullshit...moving the conversation away from science. Does it everytime.
The argument that some people make against Moore's works (and I haven't seen any of them so I have no opinion) is that he consciously presents evidence that is not true. That would disqualify those works from being documentaries.
These people disagree with the message and attack the messenger.
He uses historical documents, like footage from the security cameras in Columbine, footage from NRA meetings (edited to make Heston look like the biggest jerk in the world, but its still actual NRA-supplied footage, those are still words he said), etc.
The movies he makes are biased documentaries, but documentaries nonetheless. If you watch a documentary about Nazi Germany, you can bet that it will be biased against the Nazis. Does that disqualify it from being a documentary? No. It just means that its a biased documentary.
I'd bet that Miramax looked at that
You would loose your bet. Miramax was more than willing to distribute it until its parent company stepped in and told 'em "no".
find heat sources in a collapsed building within 3 to 6 years.
Yeah, I think the body will be cold by then...
Hahahahahaha
Yeah, thanks for setting Jesus' voting record straight.
Anytime.
Dude, did you even read your own quoted texts?
Choose, either lament that he is "setting the record firmly crooked", or that he acknowledges mistakes and sets the record straight.
And if you want want to bash him because he has made mistakes in his reporting (he's not a reporter, he's the first to admit that), then its a "he who ha never sinned" situation. What would Jesus do? He wouldn't vote for bush, that's for sure...
What? His competitor his attacking him in the midst of his publicity high? What a shocker. Its not as if he had anything to gain by bashing him, not at all, no siree Bob!
And as far as the subtlelty...well, yeah. He's a fat loudmouth, no question there : )
How do you feel about Triumph of the Will?
Its a relly well done movie. The scenes are trully awesome, the editing is, as far as I remember, inpecable. Those Nazis sure had a great sense of style and aesthetics.
Doesn't make me a white supremascist. And I won't attack the obvious qualities of the film because it was funded by a genocidal maniac. In fact, that gives the movie a second level, on top of the message it was meant to send, you can see that a monster painted himself as a saviour. Its a fascinating historical document and should serve to show to people that propaganda is a powerful tool indeed.
No Child Left Behind
Clean Forest Initiative
Clean Air Act
Man, those sure sound good...I wonder if there is any past document that could show me that a monster can sugarcoat his actions in a veil of grandiose benevolence...hmmm...
He chose to make a big deal about it so that the film would get more attention.
That is true.
I would note that I, also, am not distributing any Moore films. Am I censoring Michael Moore?
Do you have distribution capabilities and are you actively refusing to rent these capabilities to Mr, Moore despite the obvious profitable nature of such an endavour?
Could somebody please explain to me how this is biased in favor of either political leaning?
The left opposed the war, the right approved.
Sugar coating the condemnable actions of the soldiers during that war is of a right-wing political leaning because it is done in support of the war. Simple.
Let me weigh in with reviews of Bowling for Columbine
You shouldn't. Reviews of movies are inconsequential.
And the opinions of the press on a man who attacks the press are even less attractive.
a 10 second clip
Bowling had much, much more than 10 seconds.
And the bits he shot himself count as documents too (unless you think Cousteau shouldn't have won because he didn't use other people's footage? No? Ok then...).
Just because you disagree with the message of the documentary doesn't make it any less of a documentary.
Pony up his own money for distribution costs.
Don't think its a matter of cost as much as it is a matter of distribution networks.
Take the getting a free gun at the bank scene. In fact, the bank would give you a voucher that could be used at a gun store, once all the regular checks were done. The scene was completely staged - that makes it fiction, not documentary
I actually consider myself conservative in most ways, but I find myself diametrically opposed to those in power who call themselves conservative
They also call themselves christians, and then go around ordering executions and waging war.
What would Jesus do? Shock and Awe, apparently...
Get people so bogged down in shouting people down for being "red" or "blue" without ever touching a real issue. Very clever of them, isn't it?
And also very effective : (
Anyway, the extend of this colorful editing job by Moore is covered very well in the link I provided above, and you can verify everything for yourself.
What I don't get is how I am expected not to have realised by myself that the movie was cleverly edited. AND at the same time I'm apparently expected to think he doesn't deserve a film-making award because his film was well edited. It baffles me.
Like the part where that wacko you linked to points out triumphantly that Heston is not wearing the same clothes (gosh!). I actually wondered when I saw the movie why he didn't crop it so that wouldn't show. Now I know, its was deliberate honesty. And yet there are some who latch on to that as proof of the contrary.
Of course Michael Moore doesn't show "both"side of the story. He shows his point of view. He's not a news outlet, he's a film maker. You are allowed to disagree and to not give him your money.
But attacking him for speaking his mind...that's just wrong.
Also, some people attack the classification of "documentary". What is it if not a film that uses documents? Is it a drama? A comedy? A musical perhaps? It uses clips (documents), it is a documentary. That's the very definition.
His movies would be more credible if he didn't try to present them as documentaries. They're not documentaries. They're commentaries.
Unless, of course, they know the definition of documentary:
Does his movie employ documentation (film clips)?
Yes?
So, let me get this straight?
Disney commissions a Bush-bash-fest from Moore
Er, no.
Michael Moore decided to do a movie bashing Bush (hey, that's fun to say), Miramax helped (am not privy to the details). Once the movie was done, Miramax's corporate overlords, Buena Vista (owners of both Disney and Miramax), told Miramax that they were not allowed to distribute it (which I think is the part Miramax wanted to do).
if that's the case, why the hell did they commission the thing to begin with?
As you can see, its not the case.
I think Michael Moore's company did the comissioning and producing bit, Miramax was supposed to do the "get the thing into theatres" bit.
Buena Vista does the "no you don't, we bought you, you do as we say" censorship bit.
Unless, of course, they know the definition of documentary:
Does his movie employ documentation (film clips)?
Yes?
Even though I feel CNN is slanted to the left
You feel what?
Jesus H. Christ! How far to the extreme deep right are you exactly?
Example: When the U.S. troops invaded Bagdad, a CNN reporter stood outside a palace and commented that the soldiers were taking "souvenirs" from the palace. He even mentioned that most of those were solid gold.
Souvenirs? They were looting the palaces of the conquered!
But since CNN is the Pentagon News Network, they spewed that outrageous piece of doubletalk with a straight face. He even seemed proud that these soldiers were looting!
Oh yeah? from the horse's mouth.
I agree this (sic). I want to believe that Moore wants to crusade for the little guy, but he seems to benifit quite a bit from the corrupt system that he says he hates.
Yeah, his message has always been "its wrong to get paid for work you did", it sure wasn't "its wrong to destroy people's lives to make more money".
He also conviently forgets about the places he's exploited, like Flynt Michigan.
And its also wrong to move.
You should never move to another town, especially not if your hometown is an economic wasteland ever since the company that employed most people moved out. Also, never ever go live near where you will find the talent you need for your company. New York is no place for a filmaker to live, Flint has plenty of cameramen and editors and everything a film company needs...
Sheesh.
Disney made a decision as a private company and business that they will not produce and distribute a film.
The film is obviously already produced and they are ordering a company they bought to not distribute it. Their decision is motivated by political pressure, and they are willing to abandon profit in order to appease their Bush overlords (Jeb and Dubya).
a private company should not be able to pick and chose what it stands behind
Miramax picked it, Buena Vista, who bought Miramax some time ago, told 'em no.
I wonder what the shareholders will think of this. They invested in a company who decides to refuse profits, that isn't kosher. Of course, Eisner might be doing the only profitable thing: Protecting the theme park tax credits, in which case this is an instance of political censorship.
Either way, it is censorship, because no matter what your deficient education led you to believe, censorship is not something that only governments can do, nor is it only evil when governments do it.
I fail to see the 'nerd' aspect to this story. Politics aside
If you don't take care of politics, politics will take care of you.
Nerds also have the right to vote.