Michael Moore's bodyguard arrested on firearms charge

[X-ray]

@ Zudobug

I said: "As for the film being more about the Columbine kids, that's not entirely true"

You first said:

You're right. I retract my previous statement.

Then you said:

At the end of the day the film is about the columbine kids, even though he does stray off the subject to get some of his politics in.

-----------------------------------------------------------

'nuff said.

[X-ray]

@ Wilse

"...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..."
---------------------------------------------------------

Well, we seem to have different perspectives on the film. If what you're saying is true, then Fatarse shouldn't have done the segment on the free rifle giveaway at the bank, or the clips of recreational shooters that merged to scenes of murder and suicide, or the stunt at Charlton Heston's house.

I'm sure you can appreciate Moore's ultra-left-wing overtones in the film, and I'm sure you can also appreciate that the film is a vehicle for his own personal grandstanding and political views. 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.

Here are the facts:

http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

[Speelgoedmannetje]

IIRC it wasn't intended as a documentary at all, rather a political pledge.

[zudobug]

X-ray wrote:
@ Zudobug

I said: "As for the film being more about the Columbine kids, that's not entirely true"

You first said:

You're right. I retract my previous statement.

Then you said:

At the end of the day the film is about the columbine kids, even though he does stray off the subject to get some of his politics in.

-----------------------------------------------------------

'nuff said.

Ho ho ho. It could look like a mistake when you take my comments out of context like that.

The film isn't "mostly" about the columbine kids as I said (and retracted.) But they are the central theme and apparently reason for the film bowling for COLUMBINE. I even say that he "does stray off the subject".

What is wrong with that?

[edit]Actually, I just read everything again and it's even simpler than that. Why did Moore focus on guns? Because the film is (supposed to be) about the Columbine Kids, and they used guns. Which got the whole gun debate started.[/edit]

[one more edit for good luck]And before you try to pick this apart I'll be as pedantic as you seem to require and explain everything I said above so there can be no misinterpretation, if possible.... Fingers crossed.

“The film isn't "mostly" about the columbine kids as I said (and retracted.)”

- I said the film is more about the columbine kids than anything else.
- You said, “that's not entirely true.”
- I agreed, retracted previous comment.

“But they are the central theme...”

As in, what the film claims to be based on and the theme that it returns to a number of times throughout. NOT the dominant or most discussed theme...

“...and apparently reason...”

I'm not going to try to deny he had other agendas when making that film. It does seem that the Columbine tragedy gave him a convenient high-profile platform to preach his political views.

“...for the film bowling for COLUMBINE.”

And I know we had that “what's in a name?” discussion earlier. But the Columbine massacre has to be covered in a film that promises it is, even if it doesn't remain in focus throughout.

“I even say that he "does stray off the subject".”

I did say that. And I don't know how you missed it or misinterpreted it. You even pasted it in your attack. I get the feeling your browser is displaying my posts wrong or something.

And in response to the remark “'nuff said.” I think so too.

-zudo

[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.)

[Tigger]

zudobug wrote:
[edit]Actually, I just read everything again and it's even simpler than that. Why did Moore focus on guns? Because the film is (supposed to be) about the Columbine Kids, and they used guns. Which got the whole gun debate started.[/edit]

So do you think that if the kids had set off there explosives as they intended and killed the SWAT team, newsgroups and then tried to steal the plane at the airport, the movie would be about bombs???   Also the kids acquired the guns illegally, why are lax laws to blame for people acquiring items illegally??   Do you believe lax laws are responsible when someone acquires other items illegally??  Harris was a psychopath, he chose to do his killing at the school, he needed guns to control the situation so he could set up his real weapons, ie the bombs.  They intended there killing to be the largest on American soil (and if the bombs went off 600+ would have made that true until Sept 11), this isnt a couple of kids with guns, this is a psychopath and his partner, trying domestic terrorism (they originally planned on carrying it out on the annivsary of the OK City bombing) at a huge level.  Guns and Gun culture have little to do with Columbine for anyone who knows what really was planned for that day.
    -Tig
   

[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.

[zudobug]

Hey Tig,

With that many question-marks I take it you're expecting answers. :-) I'm not sure what you want me to say because I generally agree with what you have said and don't know where the wires are getting crossed here.

So do you think that if the kids had set off there explosives as they intended and killed the SWAT team, newsgroups and then tried to steal the plane at the airport, the movie would be about bombs???

Too tell the truth I'm not even sure if Moore would have made a film had they pulled off what they had intended, or if so what it would focus on. I think he covers their intentions in the film but as I've said before it's been a while since I watched it.

I've seen another documentary more recently about the Columbine massacre which did definitely go into more detail about this. It's truly crazy what they were trying to pull off.

Also the kids acquired the guns illegally, why are lax laws to blame for people acquiring items illegally??

Oh no, what have I said this time? Let's see...

My interpretation of the film is not that Moore is blaming gun ownership in general, but suggests that irresponsible gun ownership and far too relaxed gun control laws contribute to the problem, as does the climate of fear. No single thing is blamed...

As I said, that was my interpretation of what Moore was saying. I'm not his spokesman or the man himself so could be wrong. Also, that wasn't strictly about the columbine kids but gun-crime in general.

[edit]Or rather any gun-related injury in general - including crime or accident... Eeek, hope I get this in before someone jumps on this slip.[/edit]

And maybe this...

The guy in the wheelchair was "paraded" because bullets were bought at the store and MM and the kids wanted Wal/K-Mart to a) know that was the case and b) make sure kids can't buy bullets in future.

And that is what I recall from the film I last watched a couple of years ago. Not sure if that's what you were referring to either.

That's all I can find that I have said that relates loosely to your question. I don't think I have said in this thread or any other that lax laws are to blame for illegally acquired weapons. So I take it that that is your understanding of a statement made in the film and because I am not anti-moore, I must agree with that... IMO it is far too great a generalization. It depends what laws are supposed to be lax and how making them stricter would stop the illegal buying and selling of weapons, I guess. And the most it could be is a contributing factor, not totally to blame. So the answer is "no!"

As for the follow up question. It depends on what the items are and whether there are any laws in place that should put a stop to them being illegally acquired, but are far too lax... A bit like the last question only even more general. So the answer is it's possible but you need to be more specific.

Hope that helps clear things up. Like I say I pretty much agree with what you have said. If you can pinpoint what I said that leads you to think otherwise I'd like to know about it.

-zudo

[X-ray]

@ Zudo

I don't know why I waste my time with you when you cannot even establish a consistant train  of thought or a viewpoint in your own mind. So as far as any rational conversation with you is concerned, I must unfortunately admit defeat. I can't do it. I can't deal with an intellectual yo-yo. I should have learned a long time ago that any energy I expend in trying to educate you is completely wasted. With any luck I'll be able to subdue my charitable intentions in the future, and this post will be the last from me to you.

[X-ray]

@ Wilse

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

The only agenda a true documentary-maker should have, is presenting the facts. You can tell that by looking up 'documentary' in the dictionary.
Documentary: 1) consisting of or relating to documents, 2) presenting factual material with few or no fictional additions, 3) a factual film or television programme about an event, person etc., presenting the facts with little or no fiction.

I've put that there to save you the time of looking it up yourself. There are HUNDREDS of excellent documentary-makers with no agenda but filming and recording facts. From Attenborough to Zikalala, from the UK to Australia to USA, even to SA. You mean to say you don't know that "Bowling for Columbine" cannot ever hope to be a documentary? Have you swallowed the whole lot with nary a hint of chicanery sticking in your throat? If that is the case, then I'll back off right now, because any discussion with you about this film will be a waste of my time.

"...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.)..."

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

[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.

[redrumloa]

@Wilse

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

@X-Ray

While I agree with you 100% here about Moore, IMHO your tone towards Zudo is a little harsh. Zudo's a good guy.

[X-ray]

@ Wilse

Sure, I will back up what I claim. Here is one example from the piece that I linked:

"...Fact: Heston's "cold dead hands" speech, which leads off Moore's depiction of the Denver meeting, was not given at Denver after Columbine. It was given a year later in Charlotte, North Carolina, and was his gesture of gratitude upon his being given a handmade musket, at that annual meeting.

Fact: When Bowling continues on to the speech which Heston did give in Denver, it carefully edits it to change its theme.

Moore's fabrication here cannot be described by any polite term. It is a lie, a fraud, and a few other things. Carrying it out required a LOT of editing to mislead the viewer, as I will show below. I transcribed Heston's speech as Moore has it, and compared it to a news agency's transcript, color coding the passages. CLICK HERE for the comparison, with links to the original transcript.

Moore has actually taken audio of seven sentences, from five different parts of the speech, and a section given in a different speech entirely, and spliced them together. Each edit is cleverly covered by inserting a still or video footage for a few seconds..."

----------------------------------------------------------

As for your comment about me being so clever and being a know-it-all, I must confess that compared to all the moore-ons out there, it would appear to be so. But it is not any great claim, it is merely that I am not as gullible and willing to swallow that kind of sh1t as they seem to be. I note your reluctance to discover the truth behind Moore's film and I can only assume that you don't want the image of your left wing hero to be tarnished. Or maybe you are embarrassed that you actually believed that crap.

That is your problem, not mine. The onus is on you to understand that.

If you still think that Michael Moore is sincere and that his 'documentary' deserves to be called that, it is truly sad for you. There are few other slimebags out there making that kind of crap, and I have seen far more scathing ultra-left-wing documentaries even in South Africa, that have still earned my respect because of their respect for facts and the presentation of the true sequence of events as relates to the subject matter. It seems Michael Moore looks for the controversy and the opportunity to grandstand first and then tries to pad it with his version of the facts later, instead of presenting the facts first and then making a critical interpretation of them.

No matter. You will probably continue to watch Michael Moore movies. It is clear that you are steadfast in your support of them. I wonder if you will read the rest of that article...and then come back to me and tell me which genuine documentary-maker would pull stunts like that.

[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.

[Speelgoedmannetje]

Let us take it this way, the only thing the Americans put on telly/radio/whatever medium, is propaganda.