The next time someone refutes Michael Moore with "hardylaw.net"...

[Paragon]

...counter-link them with this:

http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/8/12/171427/607

I am beyond tired of seeing "Truth About Bowling" on message boards (including here on DU, courtesy of the freeps) passed off AS truth. This guy refutes the Hardy Boy point for point. Enjoy.

[Paragon]

1. kick

[sujan]

10. I posted that story few weeks ago

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[ComerPerro]

2. Sorry

Threads like this I usually read, then bookmark the site if I like it. But I don't comment, because I don't have anything worthwhile or intelligent to add.
I will, however, kick.

[KG]

3. you'd think it wouldn't be so in a 'progressive' BBS

it ain't just the freeps, and it ain't just MM. but there are a group of conservative idiots on DU that just can't wait to hijack a thread about true heroes of the left like moore, zinn, chomsky, hightower, palast and yeah, even nader with thier cut and paste BS.

oy.

[Paragon]

4. I know

But just typing "freepers" is a hell of a lot easier than typing "a group of conservative on DU that just can't wait to hijack a thread about true heroes of the left".

I just cut and pasted that, by the way.

[Ardee]

11. A rousing AMEN to that statement

n/t

[Randi_Listener]

12. Hear, hear.....

n/t

[messiah]

5. Thanks...........

[Not a robought]

6. Thanks for that

[Sterling]

7. One more

Kick

[Randi_Listener]

8. I got freeped!

I had a discussion on here with a closeted Freeper who linked me to a lengthy Freeper site. I guess the Freeper shitbags are rampant here.

[proud patriot]

9. I just tell about the perception I had of the movie

It really puts them in a mind meltdown loop .

"After watching Bowling for columbine I no longer think
guns are the problem , Honestly it's not about the guns ,
we never really got the answer clearly , but my perception
is that we are a culture of fear, There is one less anti-gun
advocate in the world because of that movie ."

That's what I tell them , and they don't know how to respond .

[Cooley Hurd]

45. 'BFC' was as much a commentary of post-9/11 life...

...as life "post-Columbine massacre." Because of fear, we actually ALLOWED something like "Patriot Act" to happen...

FDR was right - fear's a scary thing.

[jiacinto]

13. If you want to personally insul me do it in my face

You people have gall to personally attack me. Why don't you do it in front of me instead of doing it subtly? You all have no class.

[Randi_Listener]

14. WTF?

Are you talking about? How big is your ego?

[jiacinto]

15. It's obvious what KG, Paragon, and Ardee are doing

And anyone who's been here at DU long enough can see what they are doing.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jiacinto]

18. Spare me

It's sad that you must personally attack me and compare me to a girl. I do fight back, but they remove my replies when I fight fire with fire.

[Forkboy]

19. yup...the mods have it in for you

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[KG]

23. uh, DrWeird?

carlos has grey eyes.

[DrWeird]

25. No, I thought it was his brother that had the grey eyes.

I thought daddy liked Carlos more.

[jiacinto]

38. It's really sad

that you have to personally attack me to the extent that you do. It really is. It is sad that DU has a bunch of bullies who do nothing but attack people who don't follow the far left orthodoxy to the letter.

[Terwilliger]

40. LOL! Thanks Carlos!

I hadn't had a good laugh tonight

[Forkboy]

42. Coming from the main cheerleader

of The Night of the Long Knives here on DU I'll hope you'll forgive me for laughing in your face.

Hypocrite!

[Randi_Listener]

24. Do you really think....

that or are you just saying it?

What's your problem with Moore?

[Randi_Listener]

22. Are you done with your nonsense yet?

No one is being vague about you.

[Forkboy]

16. When you're done whining

care to comment on the actual story?

Funny how you can dish it out but can't take it.Sort of like a certain other party.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

28. To paraphrase a famous song...

You're so vain, I bet you think this thread is about you...

[Heddi]

30. Jeezus Christ....

THIS IS NOT ABOUT YOU...

Good god....we *KNOW* you don't like Michael Moore. We *KNOW* you don't like Ralph Nader---

Believe it or not, NOT EVERY THREAD ABOUT MOORE, NADER, or GREENS HAS TO DO WITH YOU------

This thread is *SO* not about you that it's actually laughable that you think it is.

How is posting a rebuttal to hardylaw.net a "personal attack" against you? Because it has the GALL to mention something about Michael Moore? Because you HATE Michael Moore, therefore anything that has to do with NOT hating Michael Moore is automatically a slam against you?

I mean, seriously---this is just laughable.

So now, if anyone DARES post something that you disagree with, it's a "personal attack" against you?

Perhaps you should....clear your mind, and realize that this thread is a counter to threads like this (Which again, I add, have NOTHING to do with you):

**I should note that I am not calling any of the people who quote hardylaw.com "freepers' or "Trolls" or any thing of the sort, but just showing links to show to Carlos that the discussion is not about HIM, but people who have used Hardylaw.com to discredit BFC, which is what the original poster of this thread was commenting on**


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

and this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...


and this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

See--it's really NOT about you, no matter how badly you want it to be

[Paragon]

32. Heddi...

I love you.

[Heddi]

33. and I love you too.....

And I wonder whether he'll ever see my message--I think I'm on his ignore list b/c I dared question once whether Todd Beamer was a *real* hero.

Oh well....I see no point in the ignore feature----I find that the ignore feature really doesn't do anything---You're not really ignoring a person, you're ignoring any facts they may present that could open your eyes (and mind)----there's too much censorship in our world as it is---I don't need to add to it

[jiacinto]

39. Spare me

If you read some of the posts at the begining they are veiled attacks against me.

[Wonk]

41. If you see "conservative idiot" and think of yourself don't blame others.

[Forkboy]

44. ouch

that'll leave a mark!

[FredScuttle]

47. Veiled?

Oh...you must mean unlike your posts in countless threads accusing anyone who speaks ill of Holy Joe Lieberman of being an anti-Semite.

You are beneath contempt. That, by the way, wasn't veiled.

[jiacinto]

49. You are beneath contempt

That you would slur Lieberman by calling him "Holy Joe" proves you to be beneath contempt.

[Forkboy]

51. whizzed by right over your head

[Wonk]

34. *snarf* What a comedian! (or something....) nt

[monchie]

26. I just blogged about BFC and its critics yesterday...

So here's a repost of my take on it:

Just a couple of hours ago, I watched Michael Moore's controversial "Bowling for Columbine" for the first time. Immediately afterward, with the help of Google, I looked up some of the criticisms that have been leveled at it by the right wing, and came to the conclusion that they might have a point or two or three.

First of all, the bank sequence. Moore's central point is correct: You can get a free gun for opening a CD account, and the fact that a waiting period for a background check is required is mentioned twice. However, some viewers may miss those remarks, and the editing may lead them to believe you can just walk in, open an account and leave with a gun, all in just a matter of minutes. Also, some of the critics have claimed that you generally can't pick up a long gun at the bank itself, that you have to go to a sporting goods store that has a deal with the bank. From what I can gather, both from what critics have charged and what Moore's defense is, I'm assuming here that Moore made special arrangements with the bank to pick up the gun at the branch.

Sounds to me like Moore "sexed up" (as they say in the UK) this sequence for dramatic purposes, but no one denies that the bank gives out guns as a premium for opening a CD account.

Second, the Willie Horton ad. There is some text superimposed over the notorious 1988 "revolving door" ad, which was funded by the Bush/Quayle campaign, saying something along the lines that Willie Horton was furloughed out into society where he could kill again. (I probably don't have that exactly correct, but I can't recheck it because I already returned the DVD to the video store.) Now, I saw that ad when it aired, and like many of Moore's critics, I don't recall that text being there. I'm guessing that one of two things happened: either Moore "sexed up" this sequence himself or, more likely, superimposed the other, even more notorious Willie Horton ad – which was not an official Bush/Quayle ad – over the revolving door commercial.

Third, the Charlton Heston sequence. I've seen some general criticism of the editing, but nothing specific enough for me to judge it as dishonest. Yes, there seems to be some time-shortening, but nothing that is really unethical. You've probably seen a lot worse on "60 Minutes."

Finally, lies, damn lies and statistics. I wish Moore had used per-capita gun murder statistics rather than just raw numbers. He still could've made his point very well, since per-capita US gun murders are still much, much higher than Canadian or European rates. But IMHO using raw numbers is dishonest when, say, comparing a 300 million population country, the US, to a 30 million population country, Canada. The per-capita rates are damning enough, Michael, and it's more honest to use them.

Now, let me try to put these comments in perspective. When I started looking at the criticisms of BFC, I was reminded of another documentary I saw about 20 years ago called "Six O'clock and All's Well," which was a student-directed film that examined the inner workings of a local TV newscast, in this case that of New York's ABC-owned WABC-TV. What was mind-boggling at the time for me was how many of the stories covered were staged to a certain degree; in one story, numerous retakes were done until the interviewee finally expressed the appropriate amount of dramatic enthusiasm. And the TV crew displayed an attitude of "This is just standard operating procedure."

My educated guess is that nothing in BFC is any more "staged" than what you might see on your local newscast or network magazine show. Yeah, I'm a bit bothered by it, but at least Moore doesn't pretend to be a journalist. He's a leftist documentarian who uses a camera and microphones in much the same way a commentator or pundit uses a word processor and search engine.

As far as the distortions and misrepresentations, well, they bother me too – but again they're relatively minor faults. You'll find far more and far worse distortions and misrepresentations in, say, five minutes of Rush Limbaugh's show than you'll find in two hours of BFC. And Moore's sins also don't reach the incredible level of dishonesty that the New York Times displayed in its "investigative reporting" of the phony Whitewater "scandal."

All that said, "Bowling for Columbine" is an excellent, thought-provoking documentary. It would've been so easy to blame guns, or video games, or music videos, or lack of prayer in school for irrational acts of violence like the killings at Columbine High School. Moore examines these arguments and, based on good, hard evidence from home and abroad, finds them all lacking. Then he comes up with another possibility: the culture of fear in the US. Constantly bombarded with media messages that instill Fear of "The Other," we Americans come to believe that violence is our only protection against evil, our safety net that keeps the bad guys away from us. Violence solves all. "Shoot first, ask questions later." "Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out." Is that not The American Way?

One final point about "balance." I've never been convinced of the need for balance in journalism or in documentaries with a point of view, like BFC. To use the most obvious example, if you're doing a documentary about World War 2 death camps, should you have to present a positive take on the Nazi perspective in order to have balance? Another of my favorite documentaries is Errol Morris's "The Thin Blue Line," about an innocent man who was sentenced to death for murdering a policeman in Texas. Should Morris have "balanced" TTBL by presenting a positive view of the local D.A.'s quest for vengeance against cop-killers? No, a great documentary can be a skillfully argued point of view; it doesn't have to be a balanced debate.

"Bowling for Columbine" very skillfully presents its arguments in a generally fair manner, with some lapses, but it most definitely is not balanced.

And that's okay.

[Randi_Listener]

27. So....

...I take it that you did read the website.

[Sterling]

29. Instead of reposting

Your old opinion piece why don't you post something related to the site this thread is about.

You might find that your former opinion is not valid. That is my take on your opinion after I read the site, that your opinion is not valid.

[Isome]

31. Great counter to the garbage about Moore...

I've even posted there myself a month ago or so. People need to know sources of information to refute rightwingers, of the rabid variety. They state things so authoritatively, if you're not careful, you may find yourself forgetting they're prone to exaggeration and outright lying.

[Fescue4u]

35. Not nearly as compelling

This is not about freep or left or right.

Its about Moore using sensationalism and fear to decry how the media uses sensationalism and fear.

I've read through both accounts and Hardys is much stronger.

Nonetheless, its natural that anti-gun zealots will agree with moore and this guy, and bill of rights advocates will agree with Hardy and and the rest of us who see right through Moore.

[durutti]

36. Funny Thing...

Conservatives denounce more because they're apparently too stupid to realize that BFC is *not* an anti-gun film.

[Fescue4u]

37. ahem...Sarah Brady disagrees

BFC is very anti-gun.

The brady bunch has lauded accolades on the film.

Oh yes, it does give a nice veneer of being balanced, and sometimes even pro-gun. But rest assured it IS anti-gun.

When Moore makes statements like "Isnt it dangerous to give out guns in a bank"*..only a naive person would believe that this is a progun or even neutral statement. There are hundreds of other examples throughout the film.

Mind you...There is not a damn thing wrong with making an anti-gun commentary, and if you can make money at it, fantastic! However to call it a documentary is naive.

Moore is talented and has made a very good anti-gun commentary.




*A statement which sounds funny at the surface, but patently false. What criminal would ever deposit thousands of dollars into an account, to get a gun at the bank, only to turn around and rob it.

[Isome]

43. highlighting the absolute folly ...

of giving away guns in a bank isn't being anti-gun, it's being anti-stupid. If people can't grasp that idea, they're not worth the effort anyway.

I've read Hardy's account and it's the typical neo-con distortion and lies.

[Fescue4u]

46. Nothing Folly about it.

A bank that is a FFL and fully armed is going to be the last target of a bank robbery.

Its simply ludicrous to believe that a criminal will deposit money, hand over ID, fill out a BATF form, wait while its approved, finally get the gun, load it and then rob the bank of the money that he just deposited (and then some). Anyone who believes that this is possible is a LOON.

But if it makes you feel superior to chuckle about it, then who am I to bruise your ego?

btw, I walk into my bank every week armed. Im safer for it, and for the short time Im there, the bank is safer.

[Isome]

48. It is s-t-u-p-i-d...

to give out guns in a bank. I find nothing humorous about the subject, so your encouragement of non-existent laughter isn't logical. On the other hand, if the subject tickles your funny bone, I sincerely hope you give in to the impulse and yuck it up.

An FFL bank with 20 armed security guards doesn't negate the eye-popping stupidity of giving away guns to new account holders. Whether you agree has no impact on my ego, that you carry, or don't carry, a concealed weapon is of no concern to me, nor is either issue germane to this thread or my replies to it.

The only relevant issues are the refutations of the accusations about Moore's film, and the argument that the film itself was anti-gun.

[Fescue4u]

50. Oh I C

You are just anti-gun.

Thats fine. There world is full of zealots and you are entitled to your opinion.

I see that you agree that armed security guards in a bank (who's guns are no doubt loaded) is ok....but you freak out when someone who has passed a background check, been photographed for last 60 minutes, filled out out numerous forms, is giving an unloaded (hence useless) rifle.

That makes your position clear.

Do you enjoy having Bush president? Do you enjoy Republican control of the House and Senate?

You should, because Gun control zealots like yourself have handed all three institutions over to the Republicans.

[Isome]

52. Are you s-t-u-p-i-d?

Or do you just type that way? Point out where I've made a statement that could possibly be construed as anti-gun?

You're apparently a gun enthusiast, who is so eager to attack anyone who doesn't agree with you that you're having 'text illusions', or perhaps 'verbal mirages'. Whatever the case may be, you're just a nut, a cracked nut.

[Fescue4u]

53. Your entire argument

is factless and anti-gun.

No Im not the one who is stupid.