Michael Moore's bodyguard arrested on firearms charge

[Wilse]

Michael Moore's bodyguard arrested on firearms charge

:roflmao:

I almost fell off my chair laughing when I saw that.
The fat one must be torn between being pissed off and marvelling at the irony.
Excellent. :-D

@X-Ray:

Perhaps you meant to say that Moore suspects that a culture of fear promotes gun ownership.

Hmmm.. are you sure you watched it?

I only ask because it's quite clear from the film that he doesn't think gun ownership alone is the problem.
Hence the piece on ownership in Canada being as high (higher?) as in the USA.

Obviously he is against unneccessary gun ownership but, equally obviously, he doesn't blame America's problems on it.

Did you see the part about Canada?

[Wilse]

@X-Ray:

"..Obviously he is against unneccessary gun ownership but, equally obviously, he doesn't blame America's problems on it.."
---------------------------------------------------------

Then why does he focus entirely on gun crime?

I don't see the relevance here.
Are you saying that because he focuses on gun crime, he *does* blame America's problems on gun ownership?
In focusing, as you put it, entirely on gun crime, he asks why it is so high and quite clearly and, to me at least, obviously states that he doesn't think the level of gun ownership is the reason.
Whether he inflated ownership figures in Canada to get that point across, I don't know.

But the point *was* made and was one the main themes I took from the film.

[Wilse]

Like I said it's been been a while since I watched it. I accept I might be getting mixed up but I think the bit about the climate of fear is near the end. I'll watch it again if necessary. Maybe someone else has seen it more recently and can help me out here? anyone?

It's been a while since I saw it too but that was definitely covered.
He went on about how the TV news in the U.S. is different from other countries.
Again, maybe he's exaggerating but a quick look at Fox and you can see what he means.

I actually thought his proposal was that it was this 'culture of fear' that was more responsible than gun ownership.,
He doesn't actually say this in the film though. It was just the impression I got.

[Wilse]

If what you're saying is true, then Fatarse shouldn't have done the segment on the free rifle giveaway at the bank

Why not? Obviously encouraging people to own guns is not going to help the situation, since if you don't have a gun, you can't shoot anyone.
Doesn't mean he blames that alone for it.

You're right, we do seem to have different perspectives on the film.
I'm getting the impression that you expected this film to straight out state one reason for problem, when anyone can see it's not that simple.

My point is that the film has no value at all as a documentary because:

1) It is laced with satire and is not based on recognised research.
2) It has more of a political objective than anything else.
3) It is loaded with misrepresentations, either by means of editing or by means of omission.

Point 1), fair enough, although I don't see how this disqualifies it.
If recognised research is a prerequisite for making a documentary, I stand corrected.

Points 2) and 3) could apply to countless documentaries.

Show me a documentary maker with no agenda.
Such a person does not exist.

Here are the facts:

Is there anything on that site that actually proves Fatso lied, or is just yet another site, whining about editing techniques?
(Save me reading it if it's more of same.)

[Wilse]

@Tig:

Guns and Gun culture have little to do with Columbine

Which is pretty much what the Moore was saying, although not just Columbine.

[Wilse]

@X-Ray:

The only agenda a true documentary-maker should have, is presenting the facts. You can tell that by looking up 'documentary' in the dictionary.
D

Yes, you are ever so clever. After the condescending manner in which you replied to zudo and now this, I'll leave it with this:
What a documentary maker *should* do is not the point. Maybe it's another bout of that intellectual yo-yo-ing that you mentioned.

There is no such person because everyone who sets out to make a documentary does so for a reason.

There are HUNDREDS of excellent documentary-makers with no agenda but filming and recording facts. From Attenborough to

Attenborough has no agenda? Dear, oh dear. Nice try. Perhaps it's time you read some Attenborough interviews, that way you might have a clue about him.
It's funny, you come across as a complete know it all in this thread, yet that statement destroys the mirage completely.

Yes, there is fact and evidence in abundance. Why don't you read it?

because I've wasted enough hours of my life reading sites that claim to prove Moore lied in his films and have yet to find one that actually does so.

There are images taken directly from the film there, and you will be able to check all of the accusations. The tone is not 'whining' it is objective and lucid. I have read it, the least you can do if you make such a statement is to read it too, yes?

Provide me with a single example of an outright lie, covered on that site, and I'll read the rest of it.
Provide me with 'creative editing and omissions' and I won't.

[Wilse]

@X-Ray:

I can only assume that you don't want the image of your left wing hero to be tarnished

:lol: That fat opportunist is my hero?

This isn't the first time you have demonstrated your ignorance of me.

Where did I say that I believe Moore is sincere?
Where did I say that his film is a documnentary?

I didn't. I challenged your pathetically ignorant attempt to discredit and belittle it.

If you couldn't see that, that is your problem, not mine. ;-)

I'm well aware of Moore's misleading techniques and have stated on here several times before that I found his treatment of Heston to be a disgrace, even though I think Heston is an arse.
Yet you decide to label me and pigeon hole me as though I would take everything Moore has ever said or released as absolute truth.

Once again, your problem, not mine.

[Wilse]

@Jim:

I had this arguement with you guys long ago. X-Ray is right. Moore does not make documenatries, he makes propoganda pieces.

I'm well aware Moore makes 'propaganda pieces', as you call them.

My point is that having an agenda does not disqualify one from making a documentary.

If it did, there would be no documentaries.

Getting back on topic, I still find it funny that his bodygaurd was arrested on firearms charges.

[Wilse]

@X-Ray:

Now Wilse, let me just add something very frank here: it is a source of extreme irritation and disappointment when we in the field (be it forensic, medical or supplementary) are not given due credit for the hard work and knowledge we have on our particular field of expertise.

Really? You in the field?
Then can you explain to me why my girlfriend, in almost exactly the same field as you, doesn't find it neccessary to constantly remind everyone how knowledgeable she is?
She doesn't even find it neccessary to point out that a cheek bone is actually a zygoma, when speaking to imbeciles such as myself. ;-)

Isn't the desire to constantly remind others of one's qualifications a sign of insecurity?
Oops - sorry. I'm not qualified to make such an analysis. :-D

I may like Moore's films but I don't take them as the full picture, nor have I ever claimed to.
Like everything else I watch, I take them with the obligatory pinch of salt.

[Wilse]

@X-Ray:

It would be nice if you acknowledged that Moore did willfully deceive the viewer

Sure I will - just as soon as you admit that Attenborough, whom you now admit *does* have an agenda, has done the same.


As for the 'gun from the bank' bit, here are my thoughts:

I couldn't give a badger's tadger how many hoops you have to jump through to get the gun, or how pish said gun is.
The simple fact that a gun is offered as a way to attract custom is enough.
It straddles the blurred line between absurd and horrific.

[Wilse]

since you obviously haven't found out from your girlfriend: there are many types of radiographers.

Eh, that's why I said 'almost'.

Not that it matters. :-D

As for your snide comment about constantly reminding you how knowledgeable I am, it stems from your sarcastic comment about how clever I am and what a know-it-all I am being.

Sooooooo..... the only reason you constantly remind us of your outrageously huge knowledge base, is because of my sarcastic comment?
And you've never done it before?

If so, I apologise, unreservedly.

[Wilse]

[Wilse]

@X-Ray:

Well, I do. And so do the authorities who are trying to tackle gun crime all around the world. You don't get it and you don't make any effort to get it

It's you who doesn't get it.
I'll have one last go:
A bank is offering a device designed for killing as an incentive to attract customers.
The type of device is completely irrelevant.

Nothing changed in my post - as far as your job is concerned, my girlfriend is in *almost* the same field as you.
You are both radiographers. That this can be broken down further is why I said 'almost'.

And I didn't take offence at your use of 'zygoma', I just found it amusing that you seem compelled to use such language, when 'cheekbone' would easily suffice, coupled with reminding everybody how qualified you are, every chance you get. This is a trait that can be seen in many of your posts.
FWIW, I still think it was one of the funniest stories I've read for ages. I don't have to agree with every bit of syntax to have that opinion.

As for the pints, next time I'm down in London, I'll buy you a beer if you like. ;-)

Cheers. :pint: