"Fahrenheit 9/11" to Open June 25th in 1,000 Theaters

I think, it wasn't the breakfast, it has been something wrong with the lunch and/or supper - perhaps uneasy to digest "Struik Boerenkool met Worst" in summer?

No, its smug liberals with double standards that are hard to digest, Walter.

I should know, I'm one myself. Just tryin' to avoid at least the double standards thing.

I agree, being one and often failing to avoid such double standards myself.

Thanks, nimh, I really appreciate what you said. By the way, I'm a "she" And do we really disagree on most things?

Funny how I predicted that they wouldn't accept my research, and they didn't. Even if documentaries or other books and articles support my personal theories, I still do a little of my own research before I openly support its premise. I never support something blindly. I guess I do a lot of research already, and don't like backtracking... but I ot on a roll earlier.

Here's some more, anyway...



http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,56524,00.html

Heston Interview
http://www.thehoya.com/news/033100/news3.htm

From the WS Journal
http://www.opinionjournal.com/forms/printThis.html?id=110003233/

Transscript from CNN
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0204/12/mlld.00.html

Article about NRA cancelling their meeting:
http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/shooting/0422nra3.shtml

London Times Article:
http://forums.warriorsworld.net/other/msgs/7700.phtml

paylink: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7-716842,00.html



on fake statistics:

Germany: Bowling says 381: 1995 figures put homicides at 1,476, about four times what Bowling claims, and gun homicides at 168, about half what it claims: it's either far too high or far too low. ( JЖrg Altmeppen has emailed me a link to a German site putting the figure at Moore's 381, in 1998 -- I have to depend upon his translation here, as German is one of the languages in which I can only curse.). http://www.bka.de/pks/pks1998/rg007.html

Australia: Bowling says 65. This is very close, albeit picking the year to get the data desired. Between 1980-1995, firearm homicides varied from 64-123, although never exactly 65. In 2000, it was 64, which was proudly proclaimed as the lowest number in the country's history. http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/b06660592430724fca2568b5007b8619/9c85bd1298c075eaca2568a900139342%21OpenDocument

US: Bowling says 11,127. FBI figures put it a lot lower. They report gun homicides were 8,719 in 2001, 8,661 in 2000, 8,480 in 1999. (2001 UCR, p. 23). Here's the table: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/01cius.htm

MORE MOORE faking it:

http://www.cbc.ca/artsCanada/stories/mooreguns141102

The 381 by Bowling is correct stated in that list - homicide/homicide attempts (!) in the 'old' German states and with guns.

The dates are published in 1998, but from 1997.

I am sure in "F911" Moore is telling the back story to Iraq with great passion from his viewpoint as he did in "Bowling for Columbine". People are not going to his films to get statistical information--we have the government printing office for that.

Let's not lose sight of what is really going on. We have U.S. soldiers and civilians dying because representatives of our government told us we had to go to war citing false information.

(If you want to get technical--the current war in Iraq has cost us 128 billion. For details go to www.costofwar.com.)

This week our president says he never really communicated or talked with Ahmed Chalabi regarding the possibility of Iraq having weapons of mass destruction. (This is real live president telling us this, not a theatrical documentary film.) If Bush started a war over Chalabi's information, don't you think he should have had some communication with the source of the material that put thousands of Americans at risk in Iraq?

Somehow semantic arguments over bits and pieces of Michael Moore's films, pale in comparison.

Your doing what all the dissenters do -- confusing years and sources of statistics. Sure statistics sometimes lie but the ratio over an average of ten years I'm sure it is pretty damn close. You also quote opinions from journals and writers that are skewing their viewpoint to counter Moore's. This is typical -- let the film stand as it is. The statistics are not an important part of the film but the action and interviews that are impossible to fake (unless you're suggesting Heston was paid to respond) is important. Again they chide the Palm d'Or as an instrument of the French -- it is not.

Sorry, you were so diligent to take up your time with providing links to the same old tired arguments against Moore's viewpoints. If you reached the same conclusion, that's your own business. I don't happen to believe Moore is that far left -- he is anti-establishment, that's for sure, and corporations are his target. His campaign to get Wal-Mart out of the ammunition business is nothing but admirable.

Besides, I thought Walter posted a dicussion of the new film, not "Bowling." I think we've hijacked it.

The NRA meeting, BTW, still took place in Denver as Moore questioned Heston about giving an address there no matter how curtailed. All these things are opinions with information that can be put into question just as easily as Moore's. Any of us can disagree with his tactics but I find them more on target than off and often very funny.

I like watching Moore's movies, although I don't like the guy. But I find them funny, and that's because I keep in mind that they are a form of critical political comedy. Not documentaries.

Here we go again playing with the semantics of documentary. A documentary is an assemblage of documents, nothing more, nothing less. A document is something that provides the substance of proof on a subject. It doesn't alway depend on minutia of assorted facts. It does not prescribe how those images in a film are assembled. He sure sent a lot of people out their doing homework to research where they believe he was utitlizing artistic license. It still boils down to the bias that they hate the message therefore all the contents must be spoiled by finding a few elements that they disagree with. It's around two hours long as so far af few minutes of the film has been attacked. So, treat it like an apple and cut our the spoiler part. You do like apples, don't you?

I understand from colleagues that saw the film at Cannes that this is a milder Moore and he is less in the picture than any other film and less editorial.

BTW, welcome to A2K PostModernFreak.

BTW, Riefenstahl's film has been lauded as one of the greatest documentaries of our time, regardless of its politics. Come to think of it, it's probably the last great conservative documentary ever to hit the screen.

thanks

Alright, you're hopeless, LOL. Bow down to your pink-o master Moore!

Ah, we've descended to simple name calling now. I would have expected that.

And, incidentally, I do no bowing to anyone. If you knew me, you'd know that. And who do you bow down to?

Moore is a good filmmaker -- he knows cinematography, he knows how to write well and with great humor, and he knows how to get the job done. If anyone of us could get a film like this in the theaters and win the most prestigious film prize in the world, I'm sure we would appreciate some admiration. I suspect it's that same story that the critic criticizes what they can't do themselves and what they don't understand. Welcome to the club.

Name calling... well, when you can't beat them, join 'em, right?

I don't believe Moore calls Bush any sort of name. So your can't beat them, join them is empty rhetoric.

Your name calling didn't stop there -- the inference of "pink-o" is that I worship him so I must be a "pink-o" too. Not very clever of you.

(Squeaking sound of tit being removed from wringer).

Back to more relevant matters:

Finally got into the trailer -- it really doesn't show enough to know where it goes but the on-the-ground embeded footage in Iraq looks exciting. I suppose it's also dismaying but we shall see. Already the film if being judged before anyone has even seen it.