Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Fahrenheit 9/11
loko 
Inactive Member


Message 121 of 162 (230038)
08-05-2005 6:14 AM


michael moore is working for the elite, he is a disinfo agent. they dont want you to see the big picture behind the news. Do you think the war on iraq was for oil? do you think bin laden is masterminding terrorist attacks hidden in a cave? they are playing a theater, they are driving the world to world war three to establish the new world order after that. take a look to the great seal of the united states.

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by CK, posted 08-05-2005 6:17 AM loko has not replied
 Message 124 by crashfrog, posted 08-05-2005 7:27 AM loko has not replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4128 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 122 of 162 (230039)
08-05-2005 6:17 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by loko
08-05-2005 6:14 AM


You are spamming threads
You need to stop spamming threads with the same point - the admin here don't take kindly to me - neither do the members.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by loko, posted 08-05-2005 6:14 AM loko has not replied

  
loko 
Inactive Member


Message 123 of 162 (230041)
08-05-2005 6:25 AM


this is not spam, im replying to the threads, all things point to the same thing because all of them are connected.

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 124 of 162 (230043)
08-05-2005 7:27 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by loko
08-05-2005 6:14 AM


michael moore is working for the elite, he is a disinfo agent.
So I keep hearing, but nobody's been able to explain to me exactly what misinformation he's been spreading.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by loko, posted 08-05-2005 6:14 AM loko has not replied

  
loko 
Inactive Member


Message 125 of 162 (230048)
08-05-2005 7:45 AM


you put a guy who seem to be against the government that makes the world believe that bush is evil and that the war on iraq was for oil. Just what they want you to believe. So then the real power behind bush that also controls the rest of the countries creates world war three, and you make appear that this has been caused by bush (christian fundamentalist) who wanted to conquer the muslim countries, and muslim fundamentalists who wanted to convert the world to islam. You have then the "messiah" (antichrist) who comes to save the world and explains all this stuff to the people, and people agree because they were brainwashed first. And then the real antichrist can blame bush for being the antichrist (fake one). And prosecute all those who do not submit to the new world order (real christians) for being "fundamentalists".

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by CK, posted 08-05-2005 7:53 AM loko has not replied
 Message 129 by Tal, posted 08-05-2005 2:04 PM loko has not replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4128 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 126 of 162 (230050)
08-05-2005 7:53 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by loko
08-05-2005 7:45 AM


I'm starting to suspect that, you are in fact, one of the Black-ops people who we know is working for the queen (most people don't know that the queen and the pope rule half of the world each in secret).
Who are you working for ? Are you working for the lizards?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by loko, posted 08-05-2005 7:45 AM loko has not replied

  
loko 
Inactive Member


Message 127 of 162 (230051)
08-05-2005 7:56 AM


oh no, a house cannot be divided unto itself. If i were working for the queen i would not tell you that the antichrist probably will have royal blood, this is why they have spread the holy grail lies.

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by CK, posted 08-05-2005 8:03 AM loko has not replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4128 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 128 of 162 (230052)
08-05-2005 8:03 AM
Reply to: Message 127 by loko
08-05-2005 7:56 AM


Ah it's the Lizards then.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by loko, posted 08-05-2005 7:56 AM loko has not replied

  
Tal
Member (Idle past 5677 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 129 of 162 (230226)
08-05-2005 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by loko
08-05-2005 7:45 AM


loko, I'll jib jab with you about freemasons, and I'll even go so far as to play with your theory about the US being controlled by a super secret organization.
But Islamic extremists? How are they contorlled? I doubt UBL is a card carrying member of the freemasons or vatican.

"Why not go to war just for oil? We need oil. What do Hollywood celebrities imagine fuels their private jets? How do they think their cocaine is delivered to them?"
--Ann Coulter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by loko, posted 08-05-2005 7:45 AM loko has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by Chiroptera, posted 08-05-2005 2:10 PM Tal has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 130 of 162 (230232)
08-05-2005 2:10 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by Tal
08-05-2005 2:04 PM


Ah, that's what they want you to think, Tal!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Tal, posted 08-05-2005 2:04 PM Tal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Tal, posted 08-05-2005 2:51 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
Tal
Member (Idle past 5677 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 131 of 162 (230249)
08-05-2005 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by Chiroptera
08-05-2005 2:10 PM


Your right Chiroptera, my darkest fears have been confirmed. The Vatican is run by Pope Benedict, Dark Lord of the Sith.

"Why not go to war just for oil? We need oil. What do Hollywood celebrities imagine fuels their private jets? How do they think their cocaine is delivered to them?"
--Ann Coulter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Chiroptera, posted 08-05-2005 2:10 PM Chiroptera has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by arachnophilia, posted 08-05-2005 2:54 PM Tal has not replied
 Message 133 by Silent H, posted 08-05-2005 2:57 PM Tal has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 132 of 162 (230253)
08-05-2005 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by Tal
08-05-2005 2:51 PM


lmao. that's great.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Tal, posted 08-05-2005 2:51 PM Tal has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 133 of 162 (230255)
08-05-2005 2:57 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by Tal
08-05-2005 2:51 PM


Heheheh... that was good.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Tal, posted 08-05-2005 2:51 PM Tal has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 134 of 162 (327256)
06-28-2006 4:10 PM


bump for crashfrog
Yeah, look. I don't see the lie there.
you don't see how misrepresenting a source is dishonest?
And he's cramming some "visual aids" into a talky part of the movie.
it's ALL talky parts. that's his style of documentary. verbal storytelling, with picture aids. if the audio misrepresents the visual, it's dishonest. period.
I don't see where he's portraying a letter to the editor as actual fact. You haven't told me what letter he's showing, or even proved that it actually is a letter to the editor
moore is making statements of fact. not opinions. backing "facts" up with something explicitly called "opinion" is wrong.
And if the letter is factual, doesn't that render it moot?
NO! it's still misrepresenting a source, and it's still dishonesty. even if it's right. the really retarded point is that he could have put up an article from the new york times, or even the study that letter refers to -- and that would have been fine. it's not an issue of factuality of claim, or the accuracy. it's an issue of intellectual honesty.
Newspapers do print letters.
yes. they do. in the "opinion" section.
The idea that something appearing in a newspaper - even on the front page - is an article and not a letter from someone is just your assumption.
crash, have you ever read a newspaper before?
first of all, that's not how newspapers are structured. and second, most newspapers contain bylines, and (suprise!) most of the articles -- the stuff with facts in them, as reported by the newspaper itself -- is either written by the staff, reuters, or ap. stories written by the staff, reuters or ap carry a different kind of weight than a letter that joe schmo sent in. professional journalists go to school for their trade. they are held to highers standards of impartiality by their bosses and by teams of lawyers, who make sure the paper isn't sued for a missing "allegedly" or a mistatement of fact.
letters to the editor and newspaper articles simply are not the same thing. and it's ridiculous of you to claim that they are.
Since he's not making an argument that relies on a letter being mistaken for an article, we know his intent is not to confuse.
no, his intent is to misrepresent the content under a "headline." you can tell that because he went to effor of re-typesetting the letter, so as to remove the words "opinion" and "your views" and the author's name and location.
1) The specific disputed "newspaper" you're referring to
the bloomington illinois pantagraph, december 11, 2001. the letter to the editor appears in the december 5, 2001 issue. please note that the date is bad for two reasons: it's the wrong date, and it's a year after the recounts.
2) Proof that what the "headline" actually refers to is nothing more than a letter to the editor
from the video.
the real letter to the editor.
3) Something better than "yeah I just watched the movie and now I know you're wrong."
i fail to see why you think that misrepresenting the validity of a source is not dishonest. re-typesetting a letter to editor to appear as a factual news story and using it to back up a claim is dishonest, and this apogolizing for it is rather pitiful. like i said, you would never ever stand for a creationist who did such a thing.
Not, to my knowledge, in the apportionment of the electoral college, which is done by the statewide totals. If Gore got the most votes in all of Florida, which he did, then he properly one Florida and Florida's electoral votes, and the 2000 elections.
oh, yes, sorry. you're right. florida (like most states) is a plurality state. those darned congressional elections keep throwing me off.
That's not Moore's point. It's not that Gore got the most votes nationwide - which he did and no one disputes - it's that Gore got the most votes in Florida, and thus he should have won that state's electoral votes. But because the Supreme Court stopped a full recount, the son of the man who appointed a fair number of those judges was elected President of the United States.
yes, and it is a breach of the democratic process. i agree with moore in that this damned sleazy -- but that doesn't make michael moore honest.
Again that claim is factual. It's not a lie.
but misrepresenting the source of a claim is. even if the claim is right.


Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by crashfrog, posted 06-28-2006 7:45 PM arachnophilia has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 135 of 162 (327258)
06-28-2006 4:17 PM


Mammuthus writes:
If Moore lied, he should be taken to task. Particularly since he is of no help to anyones cause if he uses misinformation and disinformation.
it's not even so much a lie, as slight distortions of the truth (which are somewhat accepted in that field -- you do make a documentary to make a point, not to evaluate every possible view), and in this case, misrepresentation of a source.
you can find other trickeries of creative editting and whatnot, too.
Mammuthus writes:
Why he would choose to mimic this aspect of the right is beyond me since one does not need to exaggerate to excoriciate the extreme right for their low regard for the truth...in principle why would he feel the need to become Ann Coulter?
indeed. in this case (above) it seem to be just laziness. there are a number of better sources that moore would not have had to misrepresent for the very same claim.
i'm not saying he's dishonest because i disagree with him. on the contrary, i think he makes very good points. it's the method, not the cause. as i said, you just shouldn't have to lie to tell the truth.


  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024