You moved so quickly to find error with the sources that you completely
disregarded the argument itself. I'll readily admit that there are some
seriously flawed pieces on that site, but if you look through the two
examples I mentioned you'll see a few perfect examples of
disinformation. The pictures were the important part on those specific
pages and for the most part the write up is spot on. I'll give Moore
credit, he is one of the best I've seen at using facts to lie.
wrestle precious hours away from far more productive endeavors, all to
rehash erroneous allegations and falsehoods of intentional foundation.
They aren't falsehoods, if you look at the quote I dropped in from
Michael Moore he actually admitted to at least one of those incidents
and the rest are very well documented. He's doesn't make documentaries,
he makes political propaganda. I don't have a problem with political
propaganda even, just as long as its honest and presented as such. He
lies, and presents his work as documentary which it isn't.
I'm sitting here reading numerous posts of people saying this is the
best thing they've seen, etc, and I'd simply like them to at the very
least exercise a little more judgment.
Randall Sanborn
On Fri, 2004-07-02 at 11:10, Appal Energy wrote:
Mr. Sanborn,
Let's try a little honesty for a moment. I know that it might pain
you. But
give it a go just once.
First of all, yes, you're correct. I do make point of discredit[ing]
the
source[s], especially when the sources you use are ripe with error.
Second, when a person utilizes sources chucked full of error and
disinformation as their foundation for argument, there is essentially
no
argument and no point or purpose in going 'round and 'round the
mulberry
bush as you would apparently like effect.
Third, based upon the sources that you draw your information from,
it is
rather apparent that you're either an aspiring disinformatinalist or
someone
who siimply enjoys creating an atmosphere of argument.
Fourth, in light of that, I'm afraid that you presume far too much in
your
expectancy that everyone (or anyone) drop everything that they're
doing,
wrestle precious hours away from far more productive endeavors, all to
rehash erroneous allegations and falsehoods of intentional foundation.
To
what end? Certainly not in search of any truth. Or if so, only the
truth
as you care to interpret it.
Do you really think that a book such as Al Franken's Lies and the
Lying
Liars that tell them, A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right would
have made
it out of the batter's box if it was as full of liable and untruths as
your
sources claim?
And in all honesty, anyone who deliberately assesses judgement on a
present
issue and/or film based upon an unrelated past issue is someone who is
far
more set upon a distorted conclusion than upon any conclusion
predicated
upon reality.
Come to think of it, that practice is exactly what you're accusing
another
of. One can only presume, based upon your operating on such a double
standard, that the rules that you would care to apply to others simply
don't
apply to you?
Perahaps now you can see why you are so easily discounted?
Todd Swearingen
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: biofuel@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2004 6:58 PM
Subject: Re: [biofuel] Re: Re: Fahrenheit 9/11
I applaud your attempt to discredit the source rather than to make any
attempt whatsoever to discredit the arguement or the premise itself.
But
here are some more reputable sources, irregardless of the fact that
the site
I linked had a number of reference sources.
http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/shooting/0422nra3.shtml
And here is the link of how Moore edited hestons speech entirely and
spliced
the sentences to create an entirely new speech.
http://www.hardylaw.net/Bowlingtranscript.html
He has a link on there with the actual transcript, and you can throw
in BFC
if you want to check Moore's new version. And here is another
anti-Moore
link corraborating the Flint incident. I don't need a source for that
though, slow down your DVD player and do it frame by frame. Moore puts
together a sequence of scenes to make it look like Heston is in Flint
immediately after the death of the little girl. He actually says Just
as he
did after the Columbine shooting, Charlton Heston showed up in Flint,
to
have a big pro-gun rally.
But, from:
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=859
When I spoke to Moore last week, he confirmed Hardy's point about the
date
of the speech, but angrily denied the allegation that he had misled
viewers.
Moore actually admits the date was off. How does he get off saying he
didn't try to mislead people.
As for the civilian casualties, there are only a reported maximum of
about
11,300 according to
http://www.iraqbodycount.net
Most of the deaths are by cluster bombs and the initial
