Greedy Micheal Moore does it again - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Food Eater Lad · 10-26-2003, 03:53 PM

Edit---This is a letter written by a mother of one of the children killed in the columbine shooting. I repeat, this is not written by me, but by a mother of one of the kids killed.

Here is the link
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drm...356875,00.html

A capitalist wolf in creep's clothing

Recently, a co-worker asked me if I had seen the movie Bowling for Columbine yet, I told her absolutely not! My answer surprised her, given the fact my son, Matthew, was one of the 13 murdered during the deadliest school shooting in our country's history. I explained to her that prior to the public release of the movie the families of the injured and dead were invited by Michael Moore to attend a preview screening. How thoughtful.

Our family and others considered attending because we were genuinely interested in his message to the public regarding gun control and school violence.

However, once we discovered he was going to charge us admission we refrained from doing so.

It's laughable that Moore attempts to portray himself as an anti-establishment liberal who is the voice of the common folk, when in fact he is no better than the greedy capitalists he shuns. Maybe now that he has made millions of dollars off the blood of our children he could toss a DVD or two our way to view.

Ann M. Kechter
Evergreen

One of my main criticisms of Michael Moore over the years has been the way he shamelessly prostitutes the memories of the victims of crime to aggrandize himself, feed his ego, and line his pockets. It looks like Mrs. Kechter sees what I see. And let's not forget the comments of Columbine victim Mark Taylor, who said that Moore "screwed [him] over," and that, "He completely used us to make a buck."

Michael Moore is a pathetic, sad individual. His fans, who view him as some kind of populist hero, are the world's biggest dupes.

Here is more of what Mark Taylor had to say. I doubt you will see this in Moore's next documentary.

"I am completely against him (Moore). He screwed me over," said Mark Taylor, who with Richard Castaldo was featured in the Kmart segment that resulted in the removal of bullets from the retailer's shelves nationwide.

"He completely used us to make a buck."

Taylor contends Moore wasn't upfront about his intentions when the three visited Kmart's headquarters in Troy, Mich. Taylor said he was led to believe the visit would involve a talk with the chairman about enforcing policies on selling ammunition to youth and improving gun safety.

Even with bullets still lodged in his body from the April 1999 shooting, Taylor remains supportive of gun ownership. Moore made it appear the opposite, Taylor said.

"I had no idea what Moore's agenda was. And he had an agenda. He had it all planned out, completely," Taylor said. "I believe that every American has the right to have a gun. We should have the right to protect ourselves."

KnifeMissile · 10-26-2003, 04:30 PM

Oh, what was just cheap! You started your post with a quote that really made it look like it was your son who died in the shooting, etc... Couldn't you have used the quote tag like everyone else who quotes? I was totally mislead!
Also, in the future, could you post a link to the source of the article or, if from some non-internet source (like a magazine), at least, state what that source is?
Thank you...

Peryn · 10-26-2003, 04:46 PM

This does not surprise me very much from him....

That being said, before i really launch into him, it would be nice if you would cite your source, and please put on some quote tags, to make it easier to read, and not mislead the public like Moore did. After reading, its obvious its a quote....but still...

Killconey · 10-26-2003, 05:00 PM

Michael Moore has been intriguing me more and more. My RA loves him and owns many of his movies, but I've been hearing mixed reviews as to his credibility. I'll definitely keep this article in mind.

Food Eater Lad · 10-26-2003, 05:17 PM

I added a disclaimer and the link. Sorry for the confusion. Now please comment on the issue.

KnifeMissile · 10-26-2003, 05:46 PM

From Rocky Mountain News:

Quote:

A capitalist wolf in creep's clothing

Recently, a co-worker asked me if I had seen the movie Bowling for Columbine yet, I told her absolutely not! My answer surprised her, given the fact my son, Matthew, was one of the 13 murdered during the deadliest school shooting in our country's history. I explained to her that prior to the public release of the movie the families of the injured and dead were invited by Michael Moore to attend a preview screening. How thoughtful.

Our family and others considered attending because we were genuinely interested in his message to the public regarding gun control and school violence.

However, once we discovered he was going to charge us admission we refrained from doing so.

It's laughable that Moore attempts to portray himself as an anti-establishment liberal who is the voice of the common folk, when in fact he is no better than the greedy capitalists he shuns. Maybe now that he has made millions of dollars off the blood of our children he could toss a DVD or two our way to view.

Ann M. Kechter
Evergreen

One of my main criticisms of Michael Moore over the years has been the way he shamelessly prostitutes the memories of the victims of crime to aggrandize himself, feed his ego, and line his pockets. It looks like Mrs. Kechter sees what I see. And let's not forget the comments of Columbine victim Mark Taylor, who said that Moore "screwed [him] over," and that, "He completely used us to make a buck."

Michael Moore is a pathetic, sad individual. His fans, who view him as some kind of populist hero, are the world's biggest dupes.

Here is more of what Mark Taylor had to say although I don't know where I got it. If I did, surely I would have told you or given you a link. I doubt you will see this in Moore's next documentary.
"I am completely against him (Moore). He screwed me over," said Mark Taylor, who with Richard Castaldo was featured in the Kmart segment that resulted in the removal of bullets from the retailer's shelves nationwide. "He completely used us to make a buck." Taylor contends Moore wasn't upfront about his intentions when the three visited Kmart's headquarters in Troy, Mich. Taylor said he was led to believe the visit would involve a talk with the chairman about enforcing policies on selling ammunition to youth and improving gun safety. Even with bullets still lodged in his body from the April 1999 shooting, Taylor remains supportive of gun ownership. Moore made it appear the opposite, Taylor said. "I had no idea what Moore's agenda was. And he had an agenda. He had it all planned out, completely," Taylor said. "I believe that every American has the right to have a gun. We should have the right to protect ourselves."

KnifeMissile · 10-26-2003, 05:49 PM

Sorry, this was just how I thought the post could have been better presented. I was only considering posting it when I accidentally pressed "submit" button. It is right beside the "preview" button. I'd simply delete it but I didn't want to lose the data. Doesn't it look nice?

As for my opinion, I think it's deplorable how Moore manipulates these kids to make a message they didn't intend to make. I guess he did what he did to pay for the three million dollar apartment he owns in Manhattan (or so I'm told).

Food Eater Lad · 10-26-2003, 05:54 PM

Y You mean he does have a three million dollar apartment in NYC? He told the View that he has a flat above a gap. Poor Mikey. See how he tells half truths?

KnifeMissile · 10-26-2003, 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Food Eater Lad
Y You mean he does have a three million dollar apartment in NYC? He told the View that he has a flat above a gap. Poor Mikey. See how he tells half truths?

Why only a half truth? I bet he does live above a Gap! Ah, who knows. I make no claim that my source is reliable, hence I qualified it as a rumour and didn't give a source...

ARTelevision · 10-26-2003, 06:38 PM

It's heartening to see folks of several persuasions agree here. This media figure is a charlatan. I'm actually surprised he's revealed himself so transparently to so many. I do recall threads here in which he was vigorously defended. Perhaps there are those who would still defend him. I imagine there are. Nonetheless, I note the discerning observations that have been posted so far.

Food Eater Lad · 10-26-2003, 06:39 PM

I am sure he does live above a Gap, but he makes is sound like a modest dwelling, not the three million dollar penthouse that it is. Its typical of the way he picks his words. He can call that the letter of the words was correct, but the message, and the intent are wholy other.

Nizzle · 10-26-2003, 07:52 PM

This is a pretty damning analysis of some questionable editing techniques Moore employed in the making of this film. It gets even more interesting when you read his response to the criticisms, which not only fail to defend the specific allegations, but resort to ad hominem attacks on his accusors -- exactly what he claims is being done to him. Not very convincing.

While Moore echos some sentiments I myself hold, he has a lot of explaining to do about this movie. When I watched it, it entertained me -- but my instincts told me it was being less than fair to its subject matter. This author's analysis reveals a level of intentional deception on Moore's part that disturbs me. Even more so because, in this very movie, he accuses the media of doing exactly what he himself is demonstrably guilty of -- distorting reality for the sake of promoting his agenda. And making lots of money.

I don't think all his points are invalid. But I don't want to be tricked into believing something, either.

All said, he strikes me as the far-left's answer to Rush Limbaugh. I think he should stick to presenting his work as entertainment and not truth. He's very good at what he does, but I do not want him representing my beliefs if he's going to present his material in this fashion.

Macheath · 10-26-2003, 09:22 PM

As we here are interested in the truth we have to be pretty damn careful about what our sources are and where our quotes are coming from. I noted that Food Eater Lad's Mark Taylor quote did not have a source.

I hopped onto google to find a source and only came up with the following blog entry dated 30th April 2003 (scroll down):

http://blog.druidic.net/archives/cat_michael_moore.html

Note that the blogger also quotes Richard Castaldo's opinion on the matter. The blog cited http://www.canyoncourier.com/CANYONC...=492&PubID=866 as a source for the article but the link was dead.

I found the actual source article had been relocated here:

http://www.canyoncourier.com/article...ews/news01.txt

It may be long but I better quote the damn thing in its entirety here before it disappears into the "blog void" again

- it gives the perspective of a number of different Columbine parents and survivors as well as Moore's response to Taylor's claims.

Quote:

Monday, October 27, 2003
Archive Search

Moore's grandstanding gets mixed reviews

by Keith Miller

LITTLETON - Michael Moore's "Bowling for Columbine" may have taken best documentary honors at the Academy Awards, but not all Columbine representatives who appeared in the film feel he rolled a strike.

The Columbine contingent offered mixed reviews for the man and his award-winning work.

"I am completely against him (Moore). He screwed me over," said Mark Taylor, who with Richard Castaldo was featured in the Kmart segment that resulted in the removal of bullets from the retailer's shelves nationwide.

"He completely used us to make a buck."

Taylor contends Moore wasn't upfront about his intentions when the three visited Kmart's headquarters in Troy, Mich. Taylor said he was led to believe the visit would involve a talk with the chairman about enforcing policies on selling ammunition to youth and improving gun safety.

Even with bullets still lodged in his body from the April 1999 shooting, Taylor remains supportive of gun ownership. Moore made it appear the opposite, Taylor said.

"I had no idea what Moore's agenda was. And he had an agenda. He had it all planned out, completely," Taylor said. "I believe that every American has the right to have a gun. We should have the right to protect ourselves."

Taylor said people are placing the blame on him for Kmart pulling the bullets, and the film burned bridges between him and the National Rifle Association, whose philosophies he supports.

Wheelchair-bound from the incident, Richard Castaldo agreed Moore could have been more upfront about his intentions when visiting Kmart.

"He said he was making a movie, but wasn't too clear on what it was about," Castaldo said.

Unlike Taylor, Castaldo said he didn't feel "used," and felt the pulling of ammunition was a positive outcome.

Speaking to the Courier from his New York office, Moore said he made his agenda well-known to the youths.

"That's very odd to hear that," Moore said. "What part isn't clear? We were there to try and get the bullets off the shelves. That's why we were there. That's why they decided to go."

Moore said that in approaching Kmart he realistically expected only a reinforcement of existing policy. That Kmart removed the bullets did come as a surprise, he said, a point obvious in the film.

Moore's political grandstanding at awards ceremonies, notably calling President Bush a "fictitious president" after winning best documentary at the Academy Awards, also evoked varying views from Columbine participants.

Moore made no mention in his acceptance speech of those who helped put the film together.

The cast and crew knew beforehand that he would not mention people's names, Moore said, allowing him to use the 45 seconds allotted "for the overall good of humanity."

Moore said he got his message out as he wanted.

"I think you get 45 seconds and you go for it. And the response has been incredible," he said. Moore said the speech has resulted in millions of comments of support on his website.

Brooks Brown - wrongly accused by law enforcement in the Columbine incident due to his friendship with gunmen Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris - assisted Moore behind the camera in segments shot in Littleton. An interview in which Brown appeared did not make the film's final cut.

Brown said recognition for the supporting cast and crew would have been nice, but he understood when none was given.

"The truth of the matter is that's Michael Moore," Brown said. "He's doing the political thing. And that's cool. Everybody expected that. We all did."

Moore's politically charged speech was relevant, Brown added.

Columbine was a pinnacle focus of the country's issues at the time the movie was shot, he said. Times have since changed, and Columbine has taken a back seat to more pressing issues of the moment.

"We've moved into a different realm in the world arena, and Michael Moore has followed," Brown said.

In his 2002 book, "No Easy Answers: The Truth behind Death at Columbine," Brown offers a firsthand account of events leading up to, and the aftermath following, the Columbine tragedy. The pages contain heavy criticism of religious leaders who used Columbine to further the church's agenda.

One can't draw parallel criticism against Moore for using the tragedy to further his political views, Brown said. Moore earned the right by showing the greater issues surrounding the shootings, not just using it as a platform in and of itself.

"He did the right thing. He earned the notoriety and the ability to say other things," Brown said.

Tom Mauser lost his son Daniel in the April 1999 tragedy. The film featured Mauser at the state capitol protesting an NRA rally scheduled 10 days after the shooting.

Mauser said it was Moore's prerogative to say what he wanted at the Academy Awards. However, he hoped Moore would have continued his message of speaking out against gun violence.

And the presidential bashing could have been more effectively stated.

"I was a bit disappointed with what he had to say. I prefer that he win people over to that cause," Mauser said. "But Michael Moore is going to do what Michael Moore is going to do."

Castaldo has a similar perspective.

"When he went off on the war and on the president at the Academy Awards, I pretty much agreed with him, but I think he could have done it in a better way to not piss off a whole lot of people," he said.

Moore said his speech was very relevant to ideas expressed in the film, specifically pertaining to statements on President Bush and America as a warmonger.

"I can't think of a more effective way than the way I did it," Moore said. "To go on that stage and talk about the current war we were in was entirely appropriate to the whole point of the film."

Taylor was more outspoken against Moore's acceptance speech, calling Moore an "outsider," making statements based on limited, filtered information relayed through the media.

Copyright © 2003 Evergreen Newspapers All Rights Reserved.

Nizzle · 10-26-2003, 10:16 PM

Macheath - Thanks for the post. It's refreshing when someone takes the time to do the research in the interest of a balanced discussion.

... as opposed to just firing off their opinion and providing only clips of information that support their claim, which deprive the audience of the context and its source.

Phaenx · 10-26-2003, 11:02 PM

Charge for a private screening on a movie about their dead kids, hahaha. Great guy, I don't think most heartless businessmen could muster that shit.

Food Eater Lad · 10-27-2003, 05:20 AM

Macheath

So you are saying that Mark Taylor did NOT say what I posted?

Charlatan · 10-27-2003, 08:45 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Food Eater Lad
Macheath

So you are saying that Mark Taylor did NOT say what I posted?

No that's not what he's saying.

What he is saying is that there are two sides to every story.

mb99usa · 10-27-2003, 09:08 AM

Michael Moore seems very good at stirring up controversy. Like Limbaugh he seems to be a person either loved or hated. Love him and everythign he presents is gospel. Hate him and everything is a lie. The truth is probably somewhere in the gray area in between.

eple · 10-27-2003, 09:19 AM

Oh, another thread in FEL's crusade against Michael Moore. Let me contribute.

Ya sure, he is the evil incarnate and he probably eats babies and earn money off stealing money from grieving mothers as they hold their dying children in their arms. He also lies absolutely all of the time, like when he buys groceries, and they ask him if he needs a bag, he says "no" even though he clearly needs one, if not two, then he comes back and complais about getting no bags and he almost gets the teenager who worked there fired, even tohugh she hadn't done anything wrong and was working to earn money to pay the operation for her little sister, which had brain cancer. It's all true, and can be found somewhere on this web adress :www.google.com, if you make some searches and use your imagination to a certain extent.

Also, he is fat.

Ustwo · 10-27-2003, 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Nizzle
All said, he strikes me as the far-left's answer to Rush Limbaugh.

This isn't ment as a defense of Rush here, but I don't think he is an anti-rush. I don't think Moore really has the persuasive powers that Limbaugh does, at least not anymore. Moore has marginalized himself, and even turned off people on his own 'side' with his methods.

Most people who hate Limbaugh never really listened to Limbaugh more then a few minutes, if at all, and as such really don't know his style. With Moore I think, most people who 'hate' or don't think he is honest HAVE seen him in action. Perhaps its just because Moore is a much smaller name then Limbaugh, that unless you have seen/read what he puts out, you don't know who he is.

And while writing this, it got me thinking. I wonder if Moore's now infamous outburst at the Oscars, only real purpose was publicity. I figured he did it because it was expected, and to get in deeper in bed with the far left but mentally challenged members of the entertainment industry. I think I was wrong, it gave him a name bigger then it was. No one really cared about Moore outside of the left-right debaters. Now EVERY news/tv show is showing this guy blathering onstage at the Oscars.

He turned himself into a household name by having a temper tantrum at the Oscars. I'll give him or his agent credit for that.

Sparhawk · 10-27-2003, 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by eple
Oh, another thread in FEL's crusade against Michael Moore. Let me contribute.

Ya sure, he is the evil incarnate and he probably eats babies and earn money off stealing money from grieving mothers as they hold their dying children in their arms. He also lies absolutely all of the time, like when he buys groceries, and they ask him if he needs a bag, he says "no" even though he clearly needs one, if not two, then he comes back and complais about getting no bags and he almost gets the teenager who worked there fired, even tohugh she hadn't done anything wrong and was working to earn money to pay the operation for her little sister, which had brain cancer. It's all true, and can be found somewhere on this web adress :www.google.com, if you make some searches and use your imagination to a certain extent.

Also, he is fat.

I was grinning until the last line, the fat joke put it into giggling territory, bravo

maximusveritas · 10-27-2003, 09:33 AM

I went to see Moore speak a while back and during the Q&A, he was asked about the fact that he owns a multimillion dollar home while simultaneously railing against capitalist excesses. His response was that he earned the money and had the right to use it as he pleased. As a true liberal, I must say that his response didn't sit too well with me. I was left with an impression similar to Mrs. Kechter's, that Moore is a hypocrite who preaches one thing and does another.
With that said, I can't help but feel that Mr.Taylor's criticism has more to do with the fact that he has an agenda of his own than any actual wrongdoing on Moore's part.

Sparhawk · 10-27-2003, 12:04 PM

Here's the big question mark for this thread: When did making money make a liberal a hypocrite? Is there a dollar figure amount that a liberal can't make more of?

Success at pursuing the "american dream" is an admirable trait, as I'm sure most conservatives agree. The fact is, what he does doesn't actually HARM anyone, now does it? It's not like he's selling cigarettes to kids, or pumping toxic waste into our rivers.

eple · 10-27-2003, 12:17 PM

He's even worse: he is making money on critizising the system. That horrible, horrible man. Let him hang from the city gates, I say!

onetime2 · 10-27-2003, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sparhawk
Here's the big question mark for this thread: When did making money make a liberal a hypocrite?

Success at pursuing the "american dream" is an admirable trait, as I'm sure most conservatives agree. The fact is, what he does doesn't actually HARM anyone, now does it? It's not like he's selling cigarettes to kids, or pumping toxic waste into our rivers.

Perhaps it's his criticism of others who distort truth, manipulate others, and defraud people in the name of a buck. Nah, I'm sure that couldn't be it.

My dislike for Moore has little to do with his political leanings and more to do with his style. I can respect people that have strong beliefs and stand by them, I have little respect for those that push their beliefs on others while deriding others who do the same.

eple · 10-27-2003, 12:45 PM

I have seen Moore advocate many points of view, but I can't remember that he at any time said that people shouln't be able to earn money and use them as they wish. Is he hurting anybody?Should he, as a supposed "left-winger" sell all his belongings and live as a monk?

Ustwo · 10-27-2003, 12:49 PM

I think the problem people are talking about is he has the same 'me first' attitude that he lampoons others in business for having.

eple · 10-27-2003, 01:07 PM

Earning money and spending some of them on living a good life is contrary to his books and films on big business, government and gun-control?

BTW: Not to be an arse FEL, but considering the massive amount of time you waste bickering on about Michael Moore, you might want to start spelling his name correctly.

seretogis · 10-27-2003, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by eple
BTW: Not to be an arse FEL

Too late.

Michael Moore has been recently "outed" as what he really is -- a sensationalist that makes money off of other peoples' fear. Where no problem exists, he distorts the truth in order to create a panic to line his pockets. His work is entirely driven by self-interest, not a desire to better society.

eple · 10-27-2003, 02:38 PM

Wasn't the media's use of fear pointed out as one of the main villains in Bowling for Columbine? Something about violence decreasing while media coverage of violence has increased with 600% the last 10 years?

Anyway, you make such rabid points, seregotis, that it is impossible to take you seriously. We are discussing an author and director who has fronted his opinions on several issues and made some money in the process. He is entiteled in every way to make his opinions, and to front them any way he like. He is not forcing anyone to watch or read his works, nor is he harming anyone. If you believe in free speech, you must accept that people are advocating views different from your own, and also respect their points of view, to a certain degree. It is not stated that his books or movies are 100% objective and true, nor is it to be expected.

Pre-emptive arguement: Do not try to throw Coulter at me, for I have never slandered her the way you guys are fanatically attacking Moore.

I am stunned that you really manage to amass so much hate for a person who are using his free speech to voice his opinions on social issues. He is in full right to do this. Wether or not he has his facts right or made the correct conclutions are of course debateable, but for such a debate to be fertile, we need to stop this immature bs.

Food Eater Lad · 10-27-2003, 03:13 PM

So Eple, you are defending him charging the parents of the slain children of Columbine to see a movie about their slain kids? You avoided the topic very nicly and did manage a few ad homienum attacks. You have learned much from your studies of Mr Moore.

eple · 10-27-2003, 04:08 PM

What I posted was obviously not a direct response to the original post, FEL, but an outburst against some of the the rather fanatic posters in this thread. The price for a free society with free speech, is naturally that you might be shown some points of view which you don't like. Live with it, or move to North Korea.

I now realise that my parody post have been far outclassed by your own posts. Jesus Christ, you are painting an image of Moore chaining weeping parents to chairs, forcing their eyes open Clockwork Orange-style and forcing them to see slow-mo captions of their children dying. Did Moore at some point steal your girl or anything? Why are you trying so hard?
Regarding personal attacks (prefer english over latin when communicating), I am not the only one in this thread (or otherwise) who have resorted to that. However, I am sorry.

Food Eater Lad · 10-27-2003, 07:51 PM

Again, you avoided the topic. I dont ask that Moore be anything but examined and judged based on his words and actions. He has free speech and so do others to speak out and call him a fraud, as he is.

Now for the third time, eple, what is your take on this? Are you defending his right to make a buck exploiting the victums he pretends to help or not?

SLM3 · 10-27-2003, 08:11 PM

As a Canadian watching from outside the US, I find all the attacks on Moore quite amazing. This is how I see it:

Many of the more right wing oriented who disagree with Moore have done little to address his main points. All I've seen are attacks on the relatively insignificant aspects of his career. Do we REALLY care if parents were to be asked to pay admission to see his film? Do we REALLY care if that Lockheed Martin factory is currently making rockets to send satellites to space as opposed to the more destructive rockets it made in the past? Do you guys see where I'm going?

All the Moore bashers are attacking the minor things in order to discredit him because they're scared of his real points. How come no one is discussing the real themes of Bowling for Columbine? Why doesn't anyone here discuss the amazingly high murder rates in the US? What about the culture of fear and consumption that Moore suggests? These are the real points, not whether Moore edited two clips that unfairly make Charlton Heston look like a bad guy or other such nonsense.

My point is, stop attacking the guy for the relatively minor things (whether or not they're even true) and let's all discuss the real issues. He's brought up extremely valid points that seriously require discussion. Don't tell me he set up a scene at a bank (which he didn't) and then assume we'll all ignore the broader objectives of his narrative.

I'm sorry, but from where I stand the people that are using these tactics come across as scared to face what's really important.

SLM3

Food Eater Lad · 10-27-2003, 08:20 PM

Why discuse the real themes of Bowling for Columbine when Moore didnt even discuse them? Why did he try to link the murders to a plant in Littletown that doesnt make weapons of mass destruction? Why did he not talk about the killers history of mental problems, medications, being teased by the community, and Nazi fetishes, and the fact that they chose Hitler's birthday to kill.
Had Moore done this, as all the reall journalists and psychologists examining the Columbine Killings have done, then he would not have had a sexy cool movie to sell.
I find it odd that such a "documentary Maker" as Moore didnt even mention, not once, the most probable cause for the Columbine Shootings.

So again, if Moore avoided the issue in his own movie, and further more, delibratly inserted false and misleading information into his ficticious film, why should its "true message" be discussed?

eple · 10-28-2003, 01:39 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Food Eater Lad
Again, you avoided the topic. I dont ask that Moore be anything but examined and judged based on his words and actions. He has free speech and so do others to speak out and call him a fraud, as he is.

Now for the third time, eple, what is your take on this? Are you defending his right to make a buck exploiting the victums he pretends to help or not?

Yes, I am defending his right of free speech (or do you believe he should be denied his right to express himself trough books and/or films?).

filtherton · 10-28-2003, 02:47 AM

Quote:

Why discuse the real themes of Bowling for Columbine when Moore didnt even discuse them? Why did he try to link the murders to a plant in Littletown that doesnt make weapons of mass destruction? Why did he not talk about the killers history of mental problems, medications, being teased by the community, and Nazi fetishes, and the fact that they chose Hitler's birthday to kill.
Had Moore done this, as all the reall journalists and psychologists examining the Columbine Killings have done, then he would not have had a sexy cool movie to sell.
I find it odd that such a "documentary Maker" as Moore didnt even mention, not once, the most probable cause for the Columbine Shootings.

Do you mean the real journalists and psychologists blaming marilyn manson and video games? Because that is what i remember hearing from the "real" journalists and psychologists. Those causes certainly aren't sensationalized in the least. What are you talking about when you say "the most probable cause for the Columbine Shootings"? I'm pretty sure he mentioned the teasing which IMO is probably the largest contributing factor.

Quote:

So again, if Moore avoided the issue in his own movie, and further more, delibratly inserted false and misleading information into his ficticious film, why should its "true message" be discussed?

Because he brings up valid points: Regardless of who says it and how, gun homicides in america are ridiculously high. We live in a culture of fear. You've got to be able to look beyond the bullshit and analyze content beyond just trying to discredit someone.

almostaugust · 10-28-2003, 03:12 AM

FoodEaterLad, you do seem hung up on Michael Moore.

As ive stated on other threads you have started about him, i think he raises some interesting points of view- which cannot be a bad thing seeing as we live in a democracy and all. If he did change a dead kids mum money to see his film than that does seem a low act. Having someone look closely at govenment operations and obvious cultural problems cannot be a bad thing. In most democracised countries in the western world people are heeps more critical of thier politicians (Clinton said the hardest questions ever posed to him while in office were by students). Personally i dont think spending hours googling obscure dirt on one man is a necessarily constructive process. But hey, whatever blows your hair back.

captain · 10-28-2003, 07:31 AM

What I find most amazing about MM is he was given an Oscar for a "documentary" and it has been shown Bowling for Columbine was anything but a documentary. MM has the right to make as much money as he wants. I have an issue with his hypocrasy. Riding in on a white horse as a champion of social conscience while living high on the hog.

eple · 10-28-2003, 07:43 AM

Who said a documentary must be flawless?
Most of the "proof" against Moore shown thus far have been doubtful, mostly based on obvious misinterpretations and minor at best. Anyway, it is surprising to see all you right-wingers cry out against someone who have succeded on pursuing the american dream. It's not like Moore have denied people the right to earn money off their craft.

And how is it Moore's fault that he won an academy award? Did he force it to happen trough his alleged notorious lying and fatness?

PS: I am still waiting for an answer FEL: Do you believe Moore's freedom of speech should be restricted? Surely, this is the natural wayof stopping him from pulling through with his evil schemes of cruelty against the human race? Who else should get their freedom of speech restricted?

10-26-2003, 03:53 PM	#1 (permalink)
Food Eater Lad Banned	Greedy Micheal Moore does it again Edit---This is a letter written by a mother of one of the children killed in the columbine shooting. I repeat, this is not written by me, but by a mother of one of the kids killed. Here is the link http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drm...356875,00.html A capitalist wolf in creep's clothing Recently, a co-worker asked me if I had seen the movie Bowling for Columbine yet, I told her absolutely not! My answer surprised her, given the fact my son, Matthew, was one of the 13 murdered during the deadliest school shooting in our country's history. I explained to her that prior to the public release of the movie the families of the injured and dead were invited by Michael Moore to attend a preview screening. How thoughtful. Our family and others considered attending because we were genuinely interested in his message to the public regarding gun control and school violence. However, once we discovered he was going to charge us admission we refrained from doing so. It's laughable that Moore attempts to portray himself as an anti-establishment liberal who is the voice of the common folk, when in fact he is no better than the greedy capitalists he shuns. Maybe now that he has made millions of dollars off the blood of our children he could toss a DVD or two our way to view. Ann M. Kechter Evergreen One of my main criticisms of Michael Moore over the years has been the way he shamelessly prostitutes the memories of the victims of crime to aggrandize himself, feed his ego, and line his pockets. It looks like Mrs. Kechter sees what I see. And let's not forget the comments of Columbine victim Mark Taylor, who said that Moore "screwed [him] over," and that, "He completely used us to make a buck." Michael Moore is a pathetic, sad individual. His fans, who view him as some kind of populist hero, are the world's biggest dupes. Here is more of what Mark Taylor had to say. I doubt you will see this in Moore's next documentary. "I am completely against him (Moore). He screwed me over," said Mark Taylor, who with Richard Castaldo was featured in the Kmart segment that resulted in the removal of bullets from the retailer's shelves nationwide. "He completely used us to make a buck." Taylor contends Moore wasn't upfront about his intentions when the three visited Kmart's headquarters in Troy, Mich. Taylor said he was led to believe the visit would involve a talk with the chairman about enforcing policies on selling ammunition to youth and improving gun safety. Even with bullets still lodged in his body from the April 1999 shooting, Taylor remains supportive of gun ownership. Moore made it appear the opposite, Taylor said. "I had no idea what Moore's agenda was. And he had an agenda. He had it all planned out, completely," Taylor said. "I believe that every American has the right to have a gun. We should have the right to protect ourselves." Last edited by Food Eater Lad; 10-26-2003 at 05:16 PM..

10-26-2003, 04:46 PM	#3 (permalink)
Peryn Junkie Location: San Diego, CA.	This does not surprise me very much from him.... That being said, before i really launch into him, it would be nice if you would cite your source, and please put on some quote tags, to make it easier to read, and not mislead the public like Moore did. After reading, its obvious its a quote....but still... __________________ Dont cry kid, It's not your fault you suck.

10-26-2003, 05:00 PM	#4 (permalink)
Killconey Crazy Location: Various places in the Midwest, all depending on when I'm posting.	Michael Moore has been intriguing me more and more. My RA loves him and owns many of his movies, but I've been hearing mixed reviews as to his credibility. I'll definitely keep this article in mind. __________________ Look out for numbers two and up and they'll look out for you.

10-26-2003, 06:38 PM	#10 (permalink)
ARTelevision I change Location: USA	It's heartening to see folks of several persuasions agree here. This media figure is a charlatan. I'm actually surprised he's revealed himself so transparently to so many. I do recall threads here in which he was vigorously defended. Perhaps there are those who would still defend him. I imagine there are. Nonetheless, I note the discerning observations that have been posted so far. __________________ create evolution

10-26-2003, 07:52 PM	#12 (permalink)
Nizzle God-Hating Liberal Location: Silicon Valley, CA	This is a pretty damning analysis of some questionable editing techniques Moore employed in the making of this film. It gets even more interesting when you read his response to the criticisms, which not only fail to defend the specific allegations, but resort to ad hominem attacks on his accusors -- exactly what he claims is being done to him. Not very convincing. While Moore echos some sentiments I myself hold, he has a lot of explaining to do about this movie. When I watched it, it entertained me -- but my instincts told me it was being less than fair to its subject matter. This author's analysis reveals a level of intentional deception on Moore's part that disturbs me. Even more so because, in this very movie, he accuses the media of doing exactly what he himself is demonstrably guilty of -- distorting reality for the sake of promoting his agenda. And making lots of money. I don't think all his points are invalid. But I don't want to be tricked into believing something, either. All said, he strikes me as the far-left's answer to Rush Limbaugh. I think he should stick to presenting his work as entertainment and not truth. He's very good at what he does, but I do not want him representing my beliefs if he's going to present his material in this fashion. __________________ Nizzle

10-26-2003, 04:30 PM	#2 (permalink)
KnifeMissile Location: Waterloo, Ontario	Oh, what was just cheap! You started your post with a quote that really made it look like it was your son who died in the shooting, etc... Couldn't you have used the quote tag like everyone else who quotes? I was totally mislead! Also, in the future, could you post a link to the source of the article or, if from some non-internet source (like a magazine), at least, state what that source is? Thank you...

10-26-2003, 05:17 PM	#5 (permalink)
Food Eater Lad Banned	I added a disclaimer and the link. Sorry for the confusion. Now please comment on the issue.

10-26-2003, 05:49 PM	#7 (permalink)
KnifeMissile Location: Waterloo, Ontario	Sorry, this was just how I thought the post could have been better presented. I was only considering posting it when I accidentally pressed "submit" button. It is right beside the "preview" button. I'd simply delete it but I didn't want to lose the data. Doesn't it look nice? As for my opinion, I think it's deplorable how Moore manipulates these kids to make a message they didn't intend to make. I guess he did what he did to pay for the three million dollar apartment he owns in Manhattan (or so I'm told).

10-26-2003, 05:54 PM	#8 (permalink)
Food Eater Lad Banned	Y You mean he does have a three million dollar apartment in NYC? He told the View that he has a flat above a gap. Poor Mikey. See how he tells half truths?

10-26-2003, 06:39 PM	#11 (permalink)
Food Eater Lad Banned	I am sure he does live above a Gap, but he makes is sound like a modest dwelling, not the three million dollar penthouse that it is. Its typical of the way he picks his words. He can call that the letter of the words was correct, but the message, and the intent are wholy other.

10-26-2003, 10:16 PM	#14 (permalink)
Nizzle God-Hating Liberal Location: Silicon Valley, CA	Macheath - Thanks for the post. It's refreshing when someone takes the time to do the research in the interest of a balanced discussion. ... as opposed to just firing off their opinion and providing only clips of information that support their claim, which deprive the audience of the context and its source. __________________ Nizzle

10-26-2003, 11:02 PM	#15 (permalink)
Phaenx The Northern Ward Location: Columbus, Ohio	Charge for a private screening on a movie about their dead kids, hahaha. Great guy, I don't think most heartless businessmen could muster that shit. __________________ "I went shopping last night at like 1am. The place was empty and this old woman just making polite conversation said to me, 'where is everyone??' I replied, 'In bed, same place you and I should be!' Took me ten minutes to figure out why she gave me a dirty look." --Some guy

10-27-2003, 05:20 AM	#16 (permalink)
Food Eater Lad Banned	Macheath So you are saying that Mark Taylor did NOT say what I posted?

10-27-2003, 09:08 AM	#18 (permalink)
mb99usa Keep on rolling. It only hurts for a little while. Location: wherever I am	Michael Moore seems very good at stirring up controversy. Like Limbaugh he seems to be a person either loved or hated. Love him and everythign he presents is gospel. Hate him and everything is a lie. The truth is probably somewhere in the gray area in between. __________________ So, what's your point? It's not an attitude, it's a way of life.

10-27-2003, 09:19 AM	#19 (permalink)
eple Banned Location: norway	Oh, another thread in FEL's crusade against Michael Moore. Let me contribute. Ya sure, he is the evil incarnate and he probably eats babies and earn money off stealing money from grieving mothers as they hold their dying children in their arms. He also lies absolutely all of the time, like when he buys groceries, and they ask him if he needs a bag, he says "no" even though he clearly needs one, if not two, then he comes back and complais about getting no bags and he almost gets the teenager who worked there fired, even tohugh she hadn't done anything wrong and was working to earn money to pay the operation for her little sister, which had brain cancer. It's all true, and can be found somewhere on this web adress :www.google.com, if you make some searches and use your imagination to a certain extent. Also, he is fat.

10-27-2003, 09:33 AM	#22 (permalink)
maximusveritas Winner	I went to see Moore speak a while back and during the Q&A, he was asked about the fact that he owns a multimillion dollar home while simultaneously railing against capitalist excesses. His response was that he earned the money and had the right to use it as he pleased. As a true liberal, I must say that his response didn't sit too well with me. I was left with an impression similar to Mrs. Kechter's, that Moore is a hypocrite who preaches one thing and does another. With that said, I can't help but feel that Mr.Taylor's criticism has more to do with the fact that he has an agenda of his own than any actual wrongdoing on Moore's part.

10-27-2003, 12:04 PM	#23 (permalink)
Sparhawk Dubya Location: VA	Here's the big question mark for this thread: When did making money make a liberal a hypocrite? Is there a dollar figure amount that a liberal can't make more of? Success at pursuing the "american dream" is an admirable trait, as I'm sure most conservatives agree. The fact is, what he does doesn't actually HARM anyone, now does it? It's not like he's selling cigarettes to kids, or pumping toxic waste into our rivers. __________________ "In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."

10-27-2003, 12:17 PM	#24 (permalink)
eple Banned Location: norway	He's even worse: he is making money on critizising the system. That horrible, horrible man. Let him hang from the city gates, I say!

10-27-2003, 12:45 PM	#26 (permalink)
eple Banned Location: norway	I have seen Moore advocate many points of view, but I can't remember that he at any time said that people shouln't be able to earn money and use them as they wish. Is he hurting anybody?Should he, as a supposed "left-winger" sell all his belongings and live as a monk?

10-27-2003, 12:49 PM	#27 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	I think the problem people are talking about is he has the same 'me first' attitude that he lampoons others in business for having. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

10-27-2003, 01:07 PM	#28 (permalink)
eple Banned Location: norway	Earning money and spending some of them on living a good life is contrary to his books and films on big business, government and gun-control? BTW: Not to be an arse FEL, but considering the massive amount of time you waste bickering on about Michael Moore, you might want to start spelling his name correctly. Last edited by eple; 10-27-2003 at 01:10 PM..

10-27-2003, 02:38 PM	#30 (permalink)
eple Banned Location: norway	Wasn't the media's use of fear pointed out as one of the main villains in Bowling for Columbine? Something about violence decreasing while media coverage of violence has increased with 600% the last 10 years? Anyway, you make such rabid points, seregotis, that it is impossible to take you seriously. We are discussing an author and director who has fronted his opinions on several issues and made some money in the process. He is entiteled in every way to make his opinions, and to front them any way he like. He is not forcing anyone to watch or read his works, nor is he harming anyone. If you believe in free speech, you must accept that people are advocating views different from your own, and also respect their points of view, to a certain degree. It is not stated that his books or movies are 100% objective and true, nor is it to be expected. Pre-emptive arguement: Do not try to throw Coulter at me, for I have never slandered her the way you guys are fanatically attacking Moore. I am stunned that you really manage to amass so much hate for a person who are using his free speech to voice his opinions on social issues. He is in full right to do this. Wether or not he has his facts right or made the correct conclutions are of course debateable, but for such a debate to be fertile, we need to stop this immature bs. Last edited by eple; 10-27-2003 at 04:02 PM..

10-27-2003, 03:13 PM	#31 (permalink)
Food Eater Lad Banned	So Eple, you are defending him charging the parents of the slain children of Columbine to see a movie about their slain kids? You avoided the topic very nicly and did manage a few ad homienum attacks. You have learned much from your studies of Mr Moore.

10-27-2003, 04:08 PM	#32 (permalink)
eple Banned Location: norway	What I posted was obviously not a direct response to the original post, FEL, but an outburst against some of the the rather fanatic posters in this thread. The price for a free society with free speech, is naturally that you might be shown some points of view which you don't like. Live with it, or move to North Korea. I now realise that my parody post have been far outclassed by your own posts. Jesus Christ, you are painting an image of Moore chaining weeping parents to chairs, forcing their eyes open Clockwork Orange-style and forcing them to see slow-mo captions of their children dying. Did Moore at some point steal your girl or anything? Why are you trying so hard? Regarding personal attacks (prefer english over latin when communicating), I am not the only one in this thread (or otherwise) who have resorted to that. However, I am sorry.

10-27-2003, 07:51 PM	#33 (permalink)
Food Eater Lad Banned	Again, you avoided the topic. I dont ask that Moore be anything but examined and judged based on his words and actions. He has free speech and so do others to speak out and call him a fraud, as he is. Now for the third time, eple, what is your take on this? Are you defending his right to make a buck exploiting the victums he pretends to help or not?

10-27-2003, 08:11 PM	#34 (permalink)
SLM3 Insane	As a Canadian watching from outside the US, I find all the attacks on Moore quite amazing. This is how I see it: Many of the more right wing oriented who disagree with Moore have done little to address his main points. All I've seen are attacks on the relatively insignificant aspects of his career. Do we REALLY care if parents were to be asked to pay admission to see his film? Do we REALLY care if that Lockheed Martin factory is currently making rockets to send satellites to space as opposed to the more destructive rockets it made in the past? Do you guys see where I'm going? All the Moore bashers are attacking the minor things in order to discredit him because they're scared of his real points. How come no one is discussing the real themes of Bowling for Columbine? Why doesn't anyone here discuss the amazingly high murder rates in the US? What about the culture of fear and consumption that Moore suggests? These are the real points, not whether Moore edited two clips that unfairly make Charlton Heston look like a bad guy or other such nonsense. My point is, stop attacking the guy for the relatively minor things (whether or not they're even true) and let's all discuss the real issues. He's brought up extremely valid points that seriously require discussion. Don't tell me he set up a scene at a bank (which he didn't) and then assume we'll all ignore the broader objectives of his narrative. I'm sorry, but from where I stand the people that are using these tactics come across as scared to face what's really important. SLM3

10-27-2003, 08:20 PM	#35 (permalink)
Food Eater Lad Banned	Why discuse the real themes of Bowling for Columbine when Moore didnt even discuse them? Why did he try to link the murders to a plant in Littletown that doesnt make weapons of mass destruction? Why did he not talk about the killers history of mental problems, medications, being teased by the community, and Nazi fetishes, and the fact that they chose Hitler's birthday to kill. Had Moore done this, as all the reall journalists and psychologists examining the Columbine Killings have done, then he would not have had a sexy cool movie to sell. I find it odd that such a "documentary Maker" as Moore didnt even mention, not once, the most probable cause for the Columbine Shootings. So again, if Moore avoided the issue in his own movie, and further more, delibratly inserted false and misleading information into his ficticious film, why should its "true message" be discussed?

10-28-2003, 03:12 AM	#38 (permalink)
almostaugust Junkie Location: Oz	FoodEaterLad, you do seem hung up on Michael Moore. As ive stated on other threads you have started about him, i think he raises some interesting points of view- which cannot be a bad thing seeing as we live in a democracy and all. If he did change a dead kids mum money to see his film than that does seem a low act. Having someone look closely at govenment operations and obvious cultural problems cannot be a bad thing. In most democracised countries in the western world people are heeps more critical of thier politicians (Clinton said the hardest questions ever posed to him while in office were by students). Personally i dont think spending hours googling obscure dirt on one man is a necessarily constructive process. But hey, whatever blows your hair back. __________________ 'And it's been a long December and there's reason to believe Maybe this year will be better than the last I can't remember all the times I tried to tell my myself To hold on to these moments as they pass'

10-28-2003, 07:31 AM	#39 (permalink)
captain Crazy	What I find most amazing about MM is he was given an Oscar for a "documentary" and it has been shown Bowling for Columbine was anything but a documentary. MM has the right to make as much money as he wants. I have an issue with his hypocrasy. Riding in on a white horse as a champion of social conscience while living high on the hog. __________________ captain

10-28-2003, 07:43 AM	#40 (permalink)
eple Banned Location: norway	Who said a documentary must be flawless? Most of the "proof" against Moore shown thus far have been doubtful, mostly based on obvious misinterpretations and minor at best. Anyway, it is surprising to see all you right-wingers cry out against someone who have succeded on pursuing the american dream. It's not like Moore have denied people the right to earn money off their craft. And how is it Moore's fault that he won an academy award? Did he force it to happen trough his alleged notorious lying and fatness? PS: I am still waiting for an answer FEL: Do you believe Moore's freedom of speech should be restricted? Surely, this is the natural wayof stopping him from pulling through with his evil schemes of cruelty against the human race? Who else should get their freedom of speech restricted? Last edited by eple; 10-28-2003 at 07:45 AM..