'FahrenHYPE 9/11' -- reviewed.

[othello]

ironically, fahrenhype 9/11 presents a more devastating case for michael moore's alleged, yet sometimes obvious, hatred of america, than michael moore hates america does. the movie focuses solely on F9/11, as should be expected from the title. it's never slanderous, although certain people interviewed have some choice words for mikey, heh.

the movie starts off in the florida classroon, interviewing the black woman who sat next to him in the photo-op (i believe she was the principal). she disposes a few myths (the children were reading to him, the book was never upside-down, etc), and then proceeds to splice in commentary from various other people. one man, presents the fact that bush stayed in the classroom, for 5 minutes (not 7 as moore claims), and the proceeds to say something along the lines of, "if someone cant get the little details right, i would certainly question his ability to grasp the 'whole picture'."

more than fair, imo.

the movie then has a little segment on the pantagraph article, and how moore has never apologized for the blatantly dishonest editing used on, rather dismissed it as a 'typo' and claiming he has done nothing wrong. the movie thne jumps from iraq, to the saudis, osama, the connection with bush and the carlyle group, and various conspiracy theories moore has conjured out of... well... somewhere.

the film is written and directed by alan peterson, with some contribution from dick morris and a few others. there is a wide variety of people interviewed, from the common man on the street, to the actor ron silver, to liberal-eating ann coulter (who, suprisingly, received very little air time).

the movie had more than a few facts that i was not aware of. for instance, it shows that clinton's former chief of staff is an advisor (if i remember correctly) to the carlyle group, and has an invested financial interest of his own. it also shows footage of every president of the last 45 years, or so, having special meetings with the saudis (just as moore shows pics of the bush's and the saudis, in an attempt to connect some sort of invented dots)... including JFK, carter, ford, reagan, etc.

the film, mostly through dick morris and frank gaffney, also spends some time (20 minutes is my guesstimation) on clinton and his failures in the now-war on terror. it tells of how when they had solid intel in 1999 that OBL was going to be in quandor for five days, clinton called off the air strike. dick morris summed it up pretty well, referring to bush and 9/11, 'it happened under his watch, and he deserves 8 months of blame, but clinton deserves 8 years of blame.'

overall i felt the movie was fairly well done, a little slow for me, but its not enough to detract from the overall message. it ended on a patriotic, 'america, land that i love', type fadeout... a little too cheesy for me, but luckily that was really the only time. one funny scene replays ashcroft singing that 'soaring eagle' song and ron silver commenting, 'give me enough footage of moore in various situations and i can make him look like an anorexic right-wing nut.'

lol...

i recommend this movie to all moore-lovers and bush-haters, and certainly to those who have seen moore's work of deceit, farfromright 9/11. it is not as extensive as i would've liked it to be, but in the parts it does touch on, it is fairly thorough and uses commentary from various individuals. i don't think i gave too much of the content away, as there are many scenes i didn't even talk about (interviews with various soldiers, facts about bush's "vacation" time, etc). take 80 minutes out of your life to watch this flick.

also check out my review of michael moore hates america...

other related films (i have yet to see) include:

Fahrenheit 411

Celsius 41.11

related reading:

-Michael Moore is a big fat stupid white man(http://moorelies.com/book/)

-Propaganda and Fahrenheit (http://www.workingpsychology.com/fahrenheit.html)

-War, Lies, and a Videotape (http://www.eppc.org/publications/pubID.2199/pub_detail.asp)

-Fifty-nine Deceits in Fahrenheit 9/11 (http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm)

-Bowling for Truth (http://www.bowlingfortruth.com)

-Unfairenheit 9/11 (http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/)

 

[Korgoth]

just in the first paragraph I can tell you your wrong. In farenheit 9/11 he never claims bush is reading to the children and he never says the book is upside down. I don't know what "myths" they are disputing here. But tehy aren't from moore's movie. Maybe you should watch it, then try and decide for yourself.


weak

 

[ductonius]

This topic will end well.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

just in the first paragraph I can tell you your wrong. In farenheit 9/11 he never claims bush is reading to the children and he never says the book is upside down. I don't know what "myths" they are disputing here. But tehy aren't from moore's movie. Maybe you should watch it, then try and decide for yourself.


weak

Quoted for emphasis.

Looks like Othello bought into the same "FahrenHYPE" he decries.

 

[Lil' Timmy]

This topic will end well.

that's good to know. now i can flame-spam it all i want and it wont die! commence operation spammerdogger.

 

[blahblahblah]

that's good to know. now i can flame-spam it all i want and it wont die! commence operation spammerdogger.

*blahblahblah slaps Lil' Timmy with his gloglebag

That operation starts in 2 hours.

 

[othello]

just in the first paragraph I can tell you your wrong. In farenheit 9/11 he never claims bush is reading to the children and he never says the book is upside down. I don't know what "myths" they are disputing here. But tehy aren't from moore's movie. Maybe you should watch it, then try and decide for yourself.


weak

did i say those myths were from F9/11? the movie delves beyond F9/11 itself, and into the hype surrounding many of the issues mentioned in the movie. many people have claimed that bush was reading the book to the children, and there's a pic all over the internet showing the book upside-down in bush's hands.

lol ive seen moore's confused movie of deception 3 full times. how many times have you looked into the veracity of an opposing viewpoint? i would venture... none.

 

[othello]

Quoted for emphasis.

Looks like Othello bought into the same "FahrenHYPE" he decries.

looks like none of you govern your lives by any logic at all. reading just ain't you strong point, is it mech?

 

[Korgoth]

did i say those myths were from F9/11? the movie delves beyond F9/11 itself, and into the hype surrounding many of the issues mentioned in the movie. many people have claimed that bush was reading the book to the children, and there's a pic all over the internet showing the book upside-down in bush's hands.

lol ive seen moore's confused movie of deception 3 full times. how many times have you looked into the veracity of an opposing viewpoint? i would venture... none.

I would say I venture to look into opposing viewpoints just about everyday. Right here on this forum.

Oh and you used shifty editing techniques in your post to make it seem as though these myths that I stated weren't in moore's film were. Tsk tsk, you should be ashamed. Sound familiar?

 

[Mechagodzilla]

looks like none of you govern your lives by any logic at all. reading just ain't you strong point, is it mech?

Maybe I'm too good at reading. Or maybe you just suck at writing cogent points.

Look at these three quotes of what you said in this thread:

the movie focuses solely on F9/11, as should be expected from the title.

did i say those myths were from F9/11? the movie delves beyond F9/11 itself

"if someone cant get the little details right, i would certainly question his ability to grasp the 'whole picture'."

Logic, you cocky ass. Logic.
You have no right to tell me I don't understand it.

 

[Putz]

roflmao... u scared republicans frighten me. Just because you CAN'T factually dispell anything from F9/11, you have to go beyond the movie and lie, just like Bush did... what a bunch of moronic, dumbed-down propaganda.

Go back to watching Fox News.

 

[Korgoth]

Maybe I'm too good at reading. Or maybe you just suck at writing cogent points.

Look at these three quotes of what you said in this thread:






Logic, you cocky ass. Logic.
You have no right to tell me I don't understand it.

"pwned"
ahem... thank you mechaG

 

[CTTcrew_MrBlue]

Whats wrong with hating america? everyone seems to treat it like it were a serious crime

 

[Apos]

the movie starts off in the florida classroon, interviewing the black woman who sat next to him in the photo-op (i believe she was the principal). she disposes a few myths (the children were reading to him, the book was never upside-down, etc), and then proceeds to splice in commentary from various other people. one man, presents the fact that bush stayed in the classroom, for 5 minutes (not 7 as moore claims), and the proceeds to say something along the lines of, "if someone cant get the little details right, i would certainly question his ability to grasp the 'whole picture'."

more than fair, imo.

Except the recollection of one man (how does he tell 5 from 7 minutes?) doesn't trump the fact that the cameras and official timeline show him being there for 7 minutes.

So it's the hype film that is clearly getting the details wrong. They can find some random people to say what they want on camera, no matter what the actual facts are. So what?

 

[othello]

Except the recollection of one man (how does he tell 5 from 7 minutes?) doesn't trump the fact that the cameras and official timeline show him being there for 7 minutes.

So it's the hype film that is clearly getting the details wrong. They can find some random people to say what they want on camera, no matter what the actual facts are. So what?

actually all unedited footage from that day shows the timeline at 5 minutes. well apparently this world is filled with random people who can type whatever they want on forums such as these, no matter what the facts are. so what?

 

[othello]

Maybe I'm too good at reading. Or maybe you just suck at writing cogent points.

Look at these three quotes of what you said in this thread:






Logic, you cocky ass. Logic.
You have no right to tell me I don't understand it.

the movie does... it moves right along from point-to-point about F9/11. some of the people interviewed bring up other related topics. and yes, i have every right to tell you you dont understand it, although your posts clearly speak for themselves.

 

[KidRock]

michael moore is a waste of air.. a big waste of air.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

the movie does... it moves right along from point-to-point about F9/11. some of the people interviewed bring up other related topics. and yes, i have every right to tell you you dont understand it, although your posts clearly speak for themselves.

Wait, so the movie is 100% entirely about Fahrenheit 9/11 but it also contains several interviews concerning things that have all but nothing to do with the movie?

Face it, you were wrong. It's right there in print. The posts are still there, unedited.

the movie focuses solely on F9/11

the movie delves beyond F9/11

See how those mean opposite things? You made a false claim, you were called on it, and then you reversed your story and pretended it never happened.
You were wrong.

The fact is, you are caught up in the hype over the movie. You are trying so hard to discredit it at every turn. Multiple movie reviews, dropping Moore's name in every political disscussion. An openly expressed intensely personal philosophy of hate surrounding everything in even the mildest support of the movie.
You are hyping Michael Moore more than anyone else I have ever encountered in my entire life.

The only difference is that you're spewing negative hype instead of positive.

So yes, you have bought into the "FahrenHYPE". You are taking a movie designed to be controversial, and you are attempting to make it look more controversial. You seem to forget that there is no such thing as bad publicity.

Moore should pay you for these frequent little ad campaigns you churn out.

 

[othello]

Wait, so the movie is 100% entirely about Fahrenheit 9/11 but it also contains several interviews concerning things that have all but nothing to do with the movie?

Face it, you were wrong. It's right there in print. The posts are still there, unedited.


See how those mean opposite things? You made a false claim, you were called on it, and then you reversed your story and pretended it never happened.
You were wrong.

not at all. the storyline, if you can call it that, that the movie follows is 100% about F9/11. the people interviewed to counter certain points sometimes delve beyond F9/11 itself, in an effort to help the viewer better understand (i.e., speaking about clinton, etc). i wasnt wrong at all. your assumptions, as always, were.

The fact is, you are caught up in the hype over the movie. You are trying so hard to discredit it at every turn. Multiple movie reviews, dropping Moore's name in every political disscussion. An openly expressed intensely personal philosophy of hate surrounding everything in even the mildest support of the movie.
You are hyping Michael Moore more than anyone else I have ever encountered in my entire life.

that shows how truly little you have researched anything outside of your comfort zone. face it, moore tells you what you want to hear, and thats that. you dont give 2 shits about the truth, as long as what moore says coincides with your supercilious and unenlightened agenda, why even consider the possibility that hes wrong, right? nevermind the facts that he has been thoroughly discredited and extensively refuted by liberals and conservatives alike.

in regards to these movie reviews, i actually wrote them a few weeks/months ago on various political forums... i just copied and pasted them over here to share my experience and opinion. im not 'trying so hard to discredit moore', i dont need to... its been done for me. all im trying to do is open up your cemented-shut mind, and to show that it would benefit you immensely to do some real, intellectual research and critiquing... instead of typing your rebuttals and coming off looking like a complete imbecile.

oh i know, i know... the only one looking like a complete imbecile is me, right? lmao... if i look like a 'complete imbecile' to a few ignorant bush-bashers on an HL2 forum, that is more than ok with me, as that only further proves my point about how little you truly know, and how closed-off you are too any evidence contrary to your 'bush sucks!' mindset.

The only difference is that you're spewing negative hype instead of positive.

So yes, you have bought into the "FahrenHYPE". You are taking a movie designed to be controversial, and you are attempting to make it look more controversial. You seem to forget that there is no such thing as bad publicity.

Moore should pay you for these frequent little ad campaigns you churn out.

lol... the moore people that i plant a seed of doubt in, the better.

 

[Edcrab]

I'm actually yet to see any of the political movies so oft-discussed here (with the exception of Bowling for Columbine). As a foreigner (from a US point of view, of course) I have very limited knowledge of the country's political workings, but I know enough to know that you can claim almost anything and discredit almost anything. It doesn't make it definitively true or false.

Take these interesting statistics, for example. Which are true and which have been pulled out of my ar... -tic stronghold? It's an old demonstration but one which makes my point fairly accurately. Hell, even the "true" ones will be reported differently elsewhere- but then who do you believe, when there're two minute inaccuracies in measurements of time?

(Note that I don't expect anyone to solve them- just see for themselves how easily the truth can be contorted, whether unintentionally or deliberately...)



1. The US spends more money on its military than every other major economic power (top 4) combined.

2. Japan, Germany, and Australia have the world's lowest gun death rate.

3. Russia has a higher population than Canada and is also larger.

4. The British Empire is responsible for more deaths than Hitler and Stalin combined.

5. Chairman Mao has ordered more people dead than either Hitler or Stalin.

6. China is the only country to top the US's military spending (as a percentage of a GDP).

7. Canada is bigger than China.

8. Despite being the most industrialised country in Europe, Germany spends the least (as a percentage of its GDP) on its military.

9. England's legal system is among the most lenient in the world (regarding average statistical sentences for murderers and repeat offenders in fifty countries).

 

[Mechagodzilla]

not at all. the storyline, if you can call it that, that the movie follows is 100% about F9/11. the people interviewed to counter certain points sometimes delve beyond F9/11 itself, in an effort to help the viewer better understand (i.e., speaking about clinton, etc). i wasnt wrong at all. your assumptions, as always, were.

that shows how truly little you have researched anything outside of your comfort zone. face it, moore tells you what you want to hear, and thats that. you dont give 2 shits about the truth, as long as what moore says coincides with your supercilious and unenlightened agenda, why even consider the possibility that hes wrong, right? nevermind the facts that he has been thoroughly discredited and extensively refuted by liberals and conservatives alike.

in regards to these movie reviews, i actually wrote them a few weeks/months ago on various political forums... i just copied and pasted them over here to share my experience and opinion. im not 'trying so hard to discredit moore', i dont need to... its been done for me. all im trying to do is open up your cemented-shut mind, and to show that it would benefit you immensely to do some real, intellectual research and critiquing... instead of typing your rebuttals and coming off looking like a complete imbecile.
oh i know, i know... the only one looking like a complete imbecile is me, right? lmao... if i look like a 'complete imbecile' to a few ignorant bush-bashers on an HL2 forum, that is more than ok with me, as that only further proves my point about how little you truly know, and how closed-off you are too any evidence contrary to your 'bush sucks!' mindset.

lol... the moore people that i plant a seed of doubt in, the better.

Okay, let's cut the shit.

The problem with that argument, with all your arguments, is that I'm not that much of a Moore supporter. I find his movie to be far too theatrical and partisan to be taken seriously. It is severely undermined by a first half which deals with vaguely-defined conspiracy theories. I think Moore is a talented filmaker who wasted a good opportunity to debunk the Iraq war in the first half of his movie. hardly the opinion of someone who hates truth and America and whatever else you may have accused me of hating. See? You just assumed that I was some mindless idiot jumping off a cliff like the mythical lemming. You assumed, incorrectly, that respect is the same as obedience. Which might explain why you appear very concerned with the total domination of anyone who doesn't want Moore incarcerated, rather than the power to convince them to agree.

Brainwashed yet still able to criticise? I don't care about the truth, because I don't want to burn this movie off the face of the earth along with the people who like it? I have an agenda? What agenda?

Look at all the points bolded above. Each one is a point that is needlessly and baselessly offensive. Do you honestly think that I could respect your opinion after that sort of verbal cock-show?
You say you aren't trying to defame moore and his supporters, but then in the next sentence, you say you are trying to drill your ideas into my moore-loving head because my brain is made of concrete, "lol".

Which is the more researched opinion anyways? The one that accepts that Moore is not perfect, but can still respect his valid points, or the one which sees only the flaws, the documents that expose those flaws, and then immediately picks a side and chains himself to it?

As much as I'm not exactly a Moore fan, your attitude of dismissing everything he says as an evil, evil lie is just foolish in my eyes. You read the 59 deciets, and took them for the gospel truth, when most of them are just opinion points. You call moore unamerican because he made a movie, yet you call people who have valid reasons to dislike Bush ignorant (a lot).

The problem is, in order to take you seriously enough to rally behind your anti-moore cause, people need to respect your opinion. That's not going to happen when you are so closed off to other's opinions on the matter, not to mention all the lol's rolmafo's and constant baseless insulting. When was the last time anyone here congratulated you on your sensible points and effective arguments? And, in contrast, how many have told you to stop acting like this?

I'd like to be able to respect your opinion, but you come across as some cocky AOL using teenager who stumbled across the 59 deciets while searching and said ROOFLELOL. I figure you're a smart person, or at least an average person who enjoys being verbose, so that's why I'm sad that you are putting so much needless child-like anger up on the screen.

In a movie review, you actually have to review the movie. Not go in with your puns on Moore's film pre-planned. "Farfromright 9/11"? No-one likes being talked down to that way. When your review is so openly partisan, who would believe that you are actually weighing the facts?

You are going into this assuming that everyone who disaggrees with you is a Moore-loving super-liberal, when some of us would just like to hear a good point from the other side. However, when you are dead set on defaming someone, people are going to assume your arguments are just posturing and bravado.

This might be the internet, but you should at least try to keep up a demeanour that people in real life would respect too. If you were having coffee with someone, would you act this way? Would you insult me and people similar to me too our faces in the same way you do here? Laughing at you own obnoxious jokes while treating them as though they were retarded? "Lol" indeed.

You accuse moore of not showing the other side's opinion enough, yet in your case, you actually go out of your way to vilify the entire other side. the people you are preaching to are offended, and rightly so. See all the bold? those are points that could stand to be far, far less angry. Reading something like that is equivalent to being screamed at for a few minutes. It's damn near painful.

Present your opinion, add some facts, and let it speak for itself. Don't inject insults and so-on into the mix, don't make pointless comments like "how closed-off you are too any evidence contrary to your 'bush sucks!' mindset."

I'm not closed off to the evidence. I'm closed off to your evidence. There is a huge difference there. You are presenting debateable points as pure fact, and insulting anyone who points out that your evidence has multiple interpretations.

Take this argument, for example. You wrote that the movie was 100% a rebuttal to Moore's film. I pointed out that it was not true and said that you probably made a mistake. So what did you do? Did you show me how I was wrong? Did you explain that your phrasing was unclear?

No, You called me an illiterate idiot. Yet you expect me to respect you?

I'm the person you're trying to get to agree with you! All you're doing by insulting me is just immediately forcing me to disregard your opinion. That's not how you win an argument. That's how you lose respect.

Remember your post from above? Try it like this, instead:

No, you misunderstand me. In my mentioned 100%, I was not including the interview portions. Only the filmaker's views.

You have certainly heard of the many points rebuking Moore's presentation, I hope. It would be foolish to accept all his points unquestioningly. Although Moore does have a few valid points, I am of the firm opinion that the shady techniques he uses have the net effect of destrying his argument by undermining his credibility.

I am not really too concerned with debunking Moore, but have decided that too many people don't adequately question what they are shown on the screen. These reviews were written earlier and reproduced here so that I could present my viewpoint.

Here are some links to sites you might like to read. I think they support my opinion rather effectively.

See? It's easier, faster and more effective to be civil.

 

[Kiva128]

I declare the winner of this debate:

MECHAGODZILLA!!!

Still the heavyweight champion!

 

[Putz]

I say we have a constitutional ammendment stating this post will live on forever </political sarcasm>

 

[othello]

Okay, let's cut the shit.

The problem with that argument, with all your arguments, is that I'm not that much of a Moore supporter. I find his movie to be far too theatrical and partisan to be taken seriously. It is severely undermined by a first half which deals with vaguely-defined conspiracy theories. I think Moore is a talented filmaker who wasted a good opportunity to debunk the Iraq war in the first half of his movie. hardly the opinion of someone who hates truth and America and whatever else you may have accused me of hating. See? You just assumed that I was some mindless idiot jumping off a cliff like the mythical lemming. You assumed, incorrectly, that respect is the same as obedience. Which might explain why you appear very concerned with the total domination of anyone who doesn't want Moore incarcerated, rather than the power to convince them to agree.

Brainwashed yet still able to criticise? I don't care about the truth, because I don't want to burn this movie off the face of the earth along with the people who like it? I have an agenda? What agenda?

Look at all the points bolded above. Each one is a point that is needlessly and baselessly offensive. Do you honestly think that I could respect your opinion after that sort of verbal cock-show?
You say you aren't trying to defame moore and his supporters, but then in the next sentence, you say you are trying to drill your ideas into my moore-loving head because my brain is made of concrete, "lol".

Which is the more researched opinion anyways? The one that accepts that Moore is not perfect, but can still respect his valid points, or the one which sees only the flaws, the documents that expose those flaws, and then immediately picks a side and chains himself to it?

As much as I'm not exactly a Moore fan, your attitude of dismissing everything he says as an evil, evil lie is just foolish in my eyes. You read the 59 deciets, and took them for the gospel truth, when most of them are just opinion points. You call moore unamerican because he made a movie, yet you call people who have valid reasons to dislike Bush ignorant (a lot).

The problem is, in order to take you seriously enough to rally behind your anti-moore cause, people need to respect your opinion. That's not going to happen when you are so closed off to other's opinions on the matter, not to mention all the lol's rolmafo's and constant baseless insulting. When was the last time anyone here congratulated you on your sensible points and effective arguments? And, in contrast, how many have told you to stop acting like this?

I'd like to be able to respect your opinion, but you come across as some cocky AOL using teenager who stumbled across the 59 deciets while searching and said ROOFLELOL. I figure you're a smart person, or at least an average person who enjoys being verbose, so that's why I'm sad that you are putting so much needless child-like anger up on the screen.

In a movie review, you actually have to review the movie. Not go in with your puns on Moore's film pre-planned. "Farfromright 9/11"? No-one likes being talked down to that way. When your review is so openly partisan, who would believe that you are actually weighing the facts?

You are going into this assuming that everyone who disaggrees with you is a Moore-loving super-liberal, when some of us would just like to hear a good point from the other side. However, when you are dead set on defaming someone, people are going to assume your arguments are just posturing and bravado.

This might be the internet, but you should at least try to keep up a demeanour that people in real life would respect too. If you were having coffee with someone, would you act this way? Would you insult me and people similar to me too our faces in the same way you do here? Laughing at you own obnoxious jokes while treating them as though they were retarded? "Lol" indeed.

You accuse moore of not showing the other side's opinion enough, yet in your case, you actually go out of your way to vilify the entire other side. the people you are preaching to are offended, and rightly so. See all the bold? those are points that could stand to be far, far less angry. Reading something like that is equivalent to being screamed at for a few minutes. It's damn near painful.

Present your opinion, add some facts, and let it speak for itself. Don't inject insults and so-on into the mix, don't make pointless comments like "how closed-off you are too any evidence contrary to your 'bush sucks!' mindset."

I'm not closed off to the evidence. I'm closed off to your evidence. There is a huge difference there. You are presenting debateable points as pure fact, and insulting anyone who points out that your evidence has multiple interpretations.

Take this argument, for example. You wrote that the movie was 100% a rebuttal to Moore's film. I pointed out that it was not true and said that you probably made a mistake. So what did you do? Did you show me how I was wrong? Did you explain that your phrasing was unclear?

No, You called me an illiterate idiot. Yet you expect me to respect you?

I'm the person you're trying to get to agree with you! All you're doing by insulting me is just immediately forcing me to disregard your opinion. That's not how you win an argument. That's how you lose respect.

Remember your post from above? Try it like this, instead:

See? It's easier, faster and more effective to be civil.

ok... im reading over the thread i started, which is the root for the dissention between you and i. before i had even gotten a chance to respond to your post... you were already joking that i was 'sticking to the easy ones'. i was 5 pages behind!!! its wasnt a 'convenience' it was quite the opposite. i didnt realize or expect the thread to blow up that quickly, and i desperately wanted to reply to everyone post, for that exact reason, so i wouldnt be accused of skipping over post. my first reply to you was 100% civil, as was your rebuttal to my first reply. however, than you claimed that the 'thread was done' and i was still about 5 pages behind!

you never even gave me a chance! im on page 13 of the 'one reason' thread, and theres my second reply to you... nothing hostile about it, yet you have already made 2 fecetious remarks towards me. 3rd reply to you at the bottom, you asked me to 'give it a shot', and i did. no uncivil remarks. we have a little exchange on page 14, where i am still desperately behind, but trying to explain to you why i created this thread, and at the same time discuss homosexuality, as well as reply to 5 other pages of posts. then we have this. your first real reply with 'less-than-civil' remarks towards me. here, tension is mounting imo, but im still keeping my cool, and havent said anything hostile to you yet, other than the suggestion that i may have reason to doubt your credibility.

then here you just up and say that ive presented no evidence, that this thread is worthless, and that you are right and i am wrong. you also assume, even though i had clarified a number of times, that i had some sort of 'pro-bush, anti-moore' intentions behind starting that thread, and, i cant stress it enough, that is not the case. here you are unnecessarily mocking me. i feel i should point out i have yet to say anything remotely hostile or uncivil to you at this point. in fact here, a full page later, i am still trying to keep it light-hearted and joke around with you.

then, nearly 2 pages later, you unleash this hostile reply on me. what have i done to you, to deserve such a post? i stillhave yet to say anything remotely rude to you and this is page 20! a few posts later, i replied with this post. a bit sarcastic, to be sure, but nowhere near as rude as you have been to me thus far. here you go again... mocking me and making fun of me, when i havent done anything to you to deserve such hostility. here i even advocate that bush is not perfect, and that there are legitimate reasons for not wanting him re-elected and explain to you, again, my reasons for starting the thread.

here i simply state that you have been rude to me, and that i could label you in the same way you have labeled me. i express my discontent for you not even giving me a chance, and concede that perhaps i wasnt really up to the task of responding to posts 6 pages behind. here you undeservedly lash out at me yet again, as i have done nothing to deserve such rudeness from you. the very first sign of uncivility towards you showed up, in my 'MMHA reviewed' thread, in this reply

so hear we have a slew of slanderous and insulting remarks from you, with no such remarks from me... until finally i got fed up with it and resorted to the same tactics. i know what you're gonna say though, that i was acting 'cocky' towards other users and because of such, you responded to me the way you did (maybe not those exact words, but the general idea behind them). every poster is different. some people i conceded their points, some people thanked me for my reply and said they respected my opinions, some people i said the same thing to (like neutrino, for example), some people just chose to ignore anything i said, some people replied with more and more unenlightened comments, some people responded with an incresing hostility. there was a wide range of responses. my point is, all of my replies to you were civil, and nothing more than an attempt at an intellectual discussion. it was you who degenerated to insults and hostile labels and the like. my mistake was following suit.

for that, i apologize.

i am all about forgiveness and second chances mech, id even forgive michael moore if he would apologize to president bush and the american people. however, before i concede to bury the hachet with you and move on, i had to make it known that it was not i who first started calling you names, and started tossing labels such as 'ignorant', and the like, around. it was you. how can i respect that entire post you just made, knowing this? simple, i choose to.

before i submit this, there is one other thing i must apologize for. i am very, very involved on various political forums, including moorewatch.com, michael-moore.com, upsizethis.com (just to name a few). in my experience on these forums, and abroad in life, i have come across quite a gamut of opinions and viewpoints. in all my dealings with the left, it is very rare that i come across someone sensible enough to have an intellectual discussion with. there have been a few, no doubt, but in my experience (and i know im not alone in this), when someone is liberal, it is very hard to discuss facts and evidence with them. they rely more on an emotional pseudo-argument (i.e., michael moore followers).

so over time, and due to various instances, i have built up somewhat of a callous to moore supporters, bush-haters, and the liberals. no matter how much evidence is provided, it is my experience that you will never get a bush-hater to concede that lies were NOT told by the bush administration. and you will never get a moore-supporter to concede that lies WERE told, no matter how much evidence is provided. so, over time and experience, you simply do the best you can. i havent been doing the best i can. i have resorted, as you did, to the simple labeling of 'ignorance', no matter if it is an accurate label or not, and have dismissed the person as a whole. i know im not the only one who is guilty of doing that, but i will be the first to apologize for it.

its just, and im semi-rambling now, when you know something is true beyond a shadow of a doubt, it is soooo frustrating when people wont even open their minds a little to let you come in and try and explain it to them. so, because i have experienced many instances like the one i just described, instead of working yourself up into a frenzy, or even calmly trying to persuade them to give you a chance (which almost never works), you simply laugh at either their stupidity, or their ignorance, and move on. ive just dealt with so many people like that, that it sometimes makes it hard to remember that everyone is unique... and even if the viewpoints are the same, and even if the justification for those similar viewpoints are the same, it still doesnt make the persons holding those viewpoints the same. i dont feel like deserve all the blame for the way things have escalated between you and i, but i am willing to accept responsibility for my part, and apologize.

p.s., i really would like to discuss moore and/or bush with you... i dont think you're dumb, but i do think that you are misguided about a few issues (which sounds about exactly what you think about me lol), and i would appreciate the chance to 'bury the hachet', finally, and have an intelligent discussion with you. the events happening here and now, in this world, as we speak, are bigger than our egos and our little dissention here... and i would love the chance to move past that. i guess im leaving it up to you now, so here's hoping! :cheers:

 

[Neutrino]

Othello, just something to think about is that part of the reason people reacted somewhat negatively to you is that you came off as very arrogant in the first thread you posted in my opinion. I have no idea if you are or not, but many of your early arguments rested on calling other people ignorant which tends to give that impression.

Don't take it the wrong way. Just an observation.

 

[othello]

Othello, just something to think about is that part of the reason people reacted somewhat negatively to you is that you came off as very arrogant in the first thread you posted in my opinion. I have no idea if you are or not, but many of your early arguments rested on calling other people ignorant which tends to give that impression.

Don't take it the wrong way. Just an observation.

completely understandable, and i thought i spoke on that in my post above yours, did i not? i called quite a few people ingorant, because in reality, quite a lot of them were. but i guess what made me seem arrogant was that i didnt do enough to substantiate me tossing out that label? lol i was actually kind of surprised at how the whole thing took off, myself. i dont usually get so frustrated so quick. maybe becuase it was the first time i had discussed politics on these forums (and on all the other forums i go to people know where i stand and why, and i spend a great deal more time backing up my claims, because they are political forums. on here though, i was just curious as to why people didnt want bush elected, and then all of the sudden i was bombarded with 5 pages of 'war for oil! thousandreasons.com, bush lied kids dies!' and it was enough to make me puke. but i didnt puke, i rolled my eyes and rushed to respond to everyones post, yet didnt take the time to completely show why i was calling this person ignorant or that person stupid. so, like i said in my post above, sorry for that.

 

[OCybrManO]

Perhaps if the first thread had said something along the line of "What are your reasons for either supporting or opposing George W. Bush in the 2004 presidential election?" instead of "Give me one reason why i shouldn't vote to re-elect george bush... in your own words, not a copy and paste job. come on... give me one valid reason." they might not have been so hostile¹. Do you see the different tones in those two prompts? The second sounds like, before even hearing them respond, you have already assumed that you are right and everyone else is ignorant/brainwashed by the liberal media². Then, the last bit³ added an overtone of cockiness. So, I can understand how it got out of hand so quickly.

¹ then again, it is a hot-button subject... so it could have still gone bad quickly
² may or may not exist
³ "come . . . reason"

 

[Mechagodzilla]

That big long post is very nice and all, but you seem to have missed the most vital point:

fair enough... as ive said, if you have a valid reason for disliking bush, as stated above, more power to you. just dont let it be for all the ignorant reasons listed below

^^^ This the second sentence of your first response to the first question I asked you during your brief stay on the forums. Note the bold, and specifically the underline.

Yeah, I just suddenly lost respect for you for no reason. The first thing you ever said to me was an insult.

After that, I was less than enthralled with your thread. The less than friendly tone, and your similar insults to others slowly made me respect you less and less.
The baseless declarations that all media was not to be trusted.
Treating 'liberal' like a dirty word.
The opening post that assumed we would all just copy and paste other smarter answers.
The basic flaws behind the whole premise that I might have let go were now combined with useless posturing and trash talk.
Basically, I got fed up with your attitude.

I am glad you're apologising, but quotes are quotes. This is how it happened.

 

[Neutrino]

completely understandable, and i thought i spoke on that in my post above yours, did i not? i called quite a few people ingorant, because in reality, quite a lot of them were. but i guess what made me seem arrogant was that i didnt do enough to substantiate me tossing out that label? lol i was actually kind of surprised at how the whole thing took off, myself. i dont usually get so frustrated so quick. maybe becuase it was the first time i had discussed politics on these forums (and on all the other forums i go to people know where i stand and why, and i spend a great deal more time backing up my claims, because they are political forums. on here though, i was just curious as to why people didnt want bush elected, and then all of the sudden i was bombarded with 5 pages of 'war for oil! thousandreasons.com, bush lied kids dies!' and it was enough to make me puke. but i didnt puke, i rolled my eyes and rushed to respond to everyones post, yet didnt take the time to completely show why i was calling this person ignorant or that person stupid. so, like i said in my post above, sorry for that.

My main issue with you is not realy the act of calling people ignorant. My problem is that you attack people for being "ignorant" and claim they don't know the facts and justify it by saying you on the other hand do ton of research and know the facts. But in reality you yourself have been just as guilty of not knowing the facts and of being just as biased on other things. I find it to be quite hypocritical is all.

Like I said, don't take it the wrong way. I'm not trying to make you angry, or insult you or anything like that. It's just my own observation and you of course don't have to agree with it.

 

[othello]

That big long post is very nice and all, but you seem to have missed the most vital point:

^^^ This the second sentence of your first response to the first question I asked you during your brief stay on the forums. Note the bold, and specifically the underline.

Yeah, I just suddenly lost respect for you for no reason. The first thing you ever said to me was an insult.

After that, I was less than enthralled with your thread. The less than friendly tone, and your similar insults to others slowly made me respect you less and less.
The baseless declarations that all media was not to be trusted.
Treating 'liberal' like a dirty word.
The opening post that assumed we would all just copy and paste other smarter answers.
The basic flaws behind the whole premise that I might have let go were now combined with useless posturing and trash talk.
Basically, I got fed up with your attitude.

I am glad you're apologising, but quotes are quotes. This is how it happened.

you mean this reply? first off, i put a '' at the end of the statement you quoted. secondly, through out the rest of the reply i made comments suchs as:

fair enough... as ive said, if you have a valid reason for disliking bush, as stated above, more power to you.

i dont think bush, or his administration, is infallible by any means.

but i will definitely check out the book, thanks for the recommendation... sounds interesting.

in your opinion. ill admit, i was impressed... kerry held his own a lot better than i thought he would.

so lets see, i conceded some of your points, agreed slightly, yet respectfully disagreed, and tried to maintain an intellectual discussion with you based on your opinions and my rebuttals to those opinions. and all your insulting remarks that followed were because i poked a little fun at you in the beginning. please note, that this post notwithstanding, i never made a single detrimental comment to you until you started attacking and insulting me. i dont even consider this little prod to be 'uncivil' because i was joking, and i added a '', and not only that... but you had already started saying that this thread was dead, worthless, etc... before i even had a chance to respond.

so you're right... quotes are quotes. this is how it happened.