Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.

Dismiss

To Roger with relevance in mind: Moore lies about gradeschool stories

2 views

Skip to first unread message

Scott Marquardt

unread,

Jul 11, 2004, 9:16:49 PM7/11/04

Moore's "war room" has not conceded that Moore either (a) was mistaken or
(b) lied about the name of the children's story at issue when Bush was in
Booker Elementary the morning of 9/11.

http://snipurl.com/7omu

According to Moore, the name of the story was "My Pet Goat." This is not a
fact. The fact, to the contrary, is that the name of the story is "The Pet
Goat."

It's almost certain that Moore has become aware of this, given the
widespread exposure of this factual error on Moore's part.

My theory is that Moore will be willing to admit factual error or dishonest
innuendo sooner for low-stakes issues, and only after many attempts at
damage control for higher-stakes issues. This would seem to be a low-stakes
issue, and indeed it's not reasonable to assume that Moore lied about this.
It was just an error -- although it's hard to imagine how it could have
occurred.

Therefore, I've elected to use this particular factual error as a predictor
of Moore's candor. When and if I see an admission of this factual error on
Moore's web site, I will anticipate seeing further admissions of factual
innacuracy. However, I see no reason to expect concessions from Moore on
more weighty issues if he has not even brought himself to admit to such an
inconsequential error as "The Pet Goat."

Moore fans who reason that if there were errors Moore would admit them,
would do well to see whether Moore can admit even such a ridiculously
low-stakes error. Moore's critics, meanwhile, needn't expect any
concessions from Moore on more significant issues so long as he can't even
admit to such mild errors.

Is this ridiculous? Yes. But this is the kind of mindlessness Moore's
melodramatic "fact checking" "war room" surfaces.

I just e-mailed Moore on the matter:

| Subject: Factual innacuracy in 9/11
|
| The story at issue is not "My Pet Goat." It's "The Pet Goat."
|
| Thought you'd want to know.

Scott

Bob Perez

unread,

Jul 12, 2004, 4:00:39 AM7/12/04

"Scott Marquardt" <wasREM...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1ilulpc2clf0d$.dlg@marquardts.org...

Do you know the definition of perjury? It's the willful misrepresentation of
a relevant fact while under oath. If a matter isn't relevant, it isn't
perjury. This is why, for example, President Clinton's denials of a sexual
relationship with Monica Lewinsky made under oath in the Paula Jones case
did not amount to perjury since the judge in that case specifically ruled as
a matter of law that questions regarding Lewinsky were "irrelevant". Not
relevant as a matter of law and therefore not perjury as a matter of law.

The reason for this rule is simple: if a prosecutor asks you if you like his
haircut and you really think it stinks but you say "Yes, it's nice", that
does not amount to perjury even if said under oath, because ... who really
gives a rat's ass? It's a matter of no consequence, even if your response
could be evaluated as an indication of your credibility. The point is, it's
a matter of no relevance and therefore no weight attaches to its veracity.

Whether the story was entitled "My Pet Goat" or "The Pet Goat" is of so
little consequence to anything on earth, all that your reliance on this
point does is highlight how desparate has become the relentless attack on
Moore's film. Unable to find any factual errors of consequence, you are
forced to argue the merits of "My Pet Goat" vs. "The Pet Goat".
Congratulations for making the point so clearly!

Now go find something of substance to complain about. Sheesh.

--
Bob Perez

Greta Van Sustern to Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Richard Meyers
on July 1, 2004: "Why haven't you found Bin Laden"?
Meyers: "We've been unable to find Bin Laden because we don't know where
he's located".

Scott Marquardt

unread,

Jul 12, 2004, 4:14:36 AM7/12/04

Bob Perez opined thusly on Jul 12:

> Whether the story was entitled "My Pet Goat" or "The Pet Goat" is of so
> little consequence to anything on earth,

Please cite where I've claimed otherwise in any context where I've
discussed this error of fact on Moore's part. You will find, to the
contrary, that I claim precisely that it is "inconsequential." That's the
word I use. I don't think you're understanding, then, my point.

> all that your reliance on this point

For what? In the post you're responding to I say it's an "inconsequential
error." On 7/7 I refered to the title of the book (my bad -- I should have
said "story," not "book") as "FREAKING INCONSEQUENTIAL" (uppercase from
original context) http://snipurl.com/7ot6 . I repeated that the same day in
the same thread.

> does is highlight how desparate has become the relentless attack on
> Moore's film. Unable to find any factual errors of consequence,

LOL

You obviously haven't been reading Kopel's work. Good timing, your post.
I'll fire off a round of critiques that vary all the way from genuine lies
(John? Are you listening?) to mere cheap shots -- and everything in
between.

Here's a challenge. Try to rebut Kopel's *strongest* critiques.

> you are
> forced to argue the merits of "My Pet Goat" vs. "The Pet Goat".
> Congratulations for making the point so clearly!
>
> Now go find something of substance to complain about. Sheesh.

Attempt to read the post, rather than infer from what you don't read that
your interlocutors are "desperate."

Scott

Bob Perez

unread,

Jul 12, 2004, 9:43:58 PM7/12/04

"Scott Marquardt" <wasREM...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:9xpvx0b6vsim$.dlg@marquardts.org...

> > Whether the story was entitled "My Pet Goat" or "The Pet Goat" is of so
> > little consequence to anything on earth,
>
> Please cite where I've claimed otherwise

Please cite where I have claimed that you have claimed otherwise. If you'd
prefer, I'll simply join you now in reiterating the self-evident proposition
that the point is inconsquential. Happy?

> error." On 7/7 I refered to the title of the book (my bad -- I should have
> said "story," not "book")

While we're on the topic of "inconsequential", I might as well add here that
our topic does indeed relate to a "story", not a book. "The Pet Goat" is a
chapter in the Reading Mastery - Level 2, Storybook 1 school textbook.

> LOL

> You obviously haven't been reading Kopel's work.

I keep reading them looking for successful attacks on the facts. What I get
instead are various judgments about the "fairness" of Moore's juxtapositions
and the nastiness of showing the unfortunate Wolfowitz licking his comb,
etc. Wake me up when you find some actual factual errors.

Scott Marquardt

unread,

Jul 12, 2004, 10:08:44 PM7/12/04

Bob Perez opined thusly on Jul 12:

> "Scott Marquardt" <wasREM...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:9xpvx0b6vsim$.dlg@marquardts.org...
>
>>> Whether the story was entitled "My Pet Goat" or "The Pet Goat" is of so
>>> little consequence to anything on earth,
>>
>> Please cite where I've claimed otherwise
>
> Please cite where I have claimed that you have claimed otherwise.

It's certainly implicit in your direct response. You seemed to think you
were supplying me with news:

| Whether the story was entitled "My Pet Goat" or "The Pet Goat" is of so

| little consequence to anything on earth, all that your reliance on this
| point does is highlight how desparate has become the relentless attack on
| Moore's film. Unable to find any factual errors of consequence, you are

| forced to argue the merits of "My Pet Goat" vs. "The Pet Goat".
| Congratulations for making the point so clearly!

> If you'd

> prefer, I'll simply join you now in reiterating the self-evident proposition
> that the point is inconsquential. Happy?
>
>> error." On 7/7 I refered to the title of the book (my bad -- I should have
>> said "story," not "book")

> While we're on the topic of "inconsequential", I might as well add here that
> our topic does indeed relate to a "story", not a book. "The Pet Goat" is a
> chapter in the Reading Mastery - Level 2, Storybook 1 school textbook.

You're not "adding" that. The fact you just recounted was what I was
alluding to by saying "my bad -- I should have said 'story,' not 'book'."

>> LOL
>
>> You obviously haven't been reading Kopel's work.
>
> I keep reading them looking for successful attacks on the facts. What I get
> instead are various judgments about the "fairness" of Moore's juxtapositions
> and the nastiness of showing the unfortunate Wolfowitz licking his comb,
> etc. Wake me up when you find some actual factual errors.

You're either not a thorough reader, or you haven't been comparing the
critiques with Moore's actual film.

In 9/11, Moore says "Considering how he and his family, and the Saudi elite
own seven percent of America, it's probably not a bad idea." But he and his
family and the Saudi elite do *not* own seven percent of America.

Since you "keep reading" the critiques, I'm sure you'll easily be able to
find just which post handily dispatches this untruth on Moore's part.

Scott

Bob Perez

unread,

Jul 13, 2004, 4:01:25 AM7/13/04

"Scott Marquardt" <wasREM...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:1gwk1r74catcs$.dlg@marquardts.org...

> It's certainly implicit in your direct response. You seemed to think you
> were supplying me with news:

One man's "implicit" is another man's surprise. My point was not to inform
you of the fact (which you had already acknowledged) of this
inconsequentiality, but to congratulate you on making a point by virtue of
it. Copied (once again) below, for your benefit:

> | Whether the story was entitled "My Pet Goat" or "The Pet Goat" is of
so
> | little consequence to anything on earth, all that your reliance on
this
> | point does is highlight how desparate has become the relentless attack
on
> | Moore's film. Unable to find any factual errors of consequence, you
are
> | forced to argue the merits of "My Pet Goat" vs. "The Pet Goat".
> | Congratulations for making the point so clearly!

> In 9/11, Moore says "Considering how he and his family, and the Saudi

elite
> own seven percent of America, it's probably not a bad idea." But he and
his

> family and the Saudi elite do *not* own seven percent of America. ...

> Since you "keep reading" the critiques, I'm sure you'll easily be able to
> find just which post handily dispatches this untruth on Moore's part.

Of course you can't provide a link because there is none. Like I said, wake
me up when you find an actual factual error (and by this I mean a credible
refutation of some consequential and relevant fact; spare me the angst over
Wolfowitz's self-induced embarassment).

Bob Perez

unread,

Jul 13, 2004, 5:08:44 AM7/13/04

"Bob Perez" <ab...@fcc.gov> wrote in message
news:10f75j0...@news.supernews.com...

Oh, and by the way, here's a link for you:
http://www.michaelmoore.com/warroom/f911notes/

Scott Marquardt

unread,

Jul 13, 2004, 6:24:39 AM7/13/04

Bob Perez opined thusly on Jul 13:

You're claim that I "can't provide a link" belies your previous claim that
you "keep reading [Kopel's critiques] looking for successful attacks on the
facts." And BTW, your Freudian use of this tautologous nod to Moore's
"fact" is instructive. As Moore would say, "all of my facts are true."

http://snipurl.com/7pud

Let me know whether the Saudis own 7% of the U.S., as Moore claims. Since
the post is still live in any news server worth its salt, I'm sure you can
respond in the thread cited.

Scott

Scott Marquardt

unread,

Jul 13, 2004, 6:32:57 AM7/13/04

Bob Perez opined thusly on Jul 13:

> "Bob Perez" <ab...@fcc.gov> wrote in message
> news:10f75j0...@news.supernews.com...
>
> Oh, and by the way, here's a link for you:
> http://www.michaelmoore.com/warroom/f911notes/

An inept reference, I fear. It doesn't defend Moore against Kopel's
rebuttal of the 7% figure. If you had cited http://snipurl.com/7puw
instead, you'd have at least been referring to the page purporting to
support the figure. But it doesn't, and Kopel points this out in his
rebuttal. He also cites Moore's ostensible defensive material on this
"facts" page, so Kopel is anticipating -- not needing to be informed by --
Moore's "war room."

By all means review Kopel's source as well.

Scott

Big Brother

unread,

Jul 13, 2004, 9:46:54 AM7/13/04

Why don't you provide REAL links ?
You hide where you are sending people.
They don't know where they're going until it's too late.

Big Brother

unread,

Jul 13, 2004, 9:53:24 AM7/13/04

You don't provide REAL links.
Instead you use snurl.com or snipurl.com
a dangerouse and deceptive website for spying on others,
for hiding real links so they can expire and disappear forever,
for sending people to websites without them being able to
determine whether they are safe websites or not before they
actually go there. Someone could easily be sent to a hacker's website
using a snurl/snipurl link without knowing until it was too late.
snurl/snipurl is potentially dangerous, deceitful and dishonest.
Do not go to these links.

Scott Marquardt

unread,

Jul 13, 2004, 2:32:47 PM7/13/04

Big Brother opined thusly on Jul 13:

Find just one link in my history of usenet posting that has sent anyone to
a dangerous or objectionable site (some witless Moore fan will cite every
snurl to sites critical of Moore as being "objectionable," doubtless).

No one is obliged to follow any links I provide. If they do, and do
habitually, they can easily arrive at conclusions about whether my links
may be trusted. Any interlocutor who doesn't trust my good faith in
providing links is not likely to lend credence to much that I have to say
anyway, so little is lost in the conversation if such parties do not avail
themselves of the links.

I think you're being a bit paranoid.

Anyone who is concerned about this may test any snipurl before clicking
such links. To do this, form an URL thus:

http://snipurl.com/resolveurl?id=7puw where the original snipped URL ended
with "7puw"

Helpfully, the resolved full URL is clickable.

Scott

Scott Marquardt

unread,

Jul 13, 2004, 2:37:32 PM7/13/04

Big Brother opined thusly on Jul 13:

No, it doesn't "spy" on others.

> for hiding real links so they can expire and disappear forever,

What on earth do you mean by that?

> for sending people to websites without them being able to
> determine whether they are safe websites or not before they
> actually go there.

Yes, that is a legitimate concern with services like tinylink, snipurl,
tinyurl, the ineptly named makeashorterlink, and so forth. I have no
argument with you on this one -- merely let the browser beware. Don't
follow such links from people you suspect might link you to porn or such
without warning.

> Someone could easily be sent to a hacker's website
> using a snurl/snipurl link without knowing until it was too late.
> snurl/snipurl is potentially dangerous, deceitful and dishonest.
> Do not go to these links.
>
>> you "keep reading [Kopel's critiques] looking for successful attacks on the
>> facts." And BTW, your Freudian use of this tautologous nod to Moore's
>> "fact" is instructive. As Moore would say, "all of my facts are true."
>>
>> http://snipurl.com/7pud
>>
>> Let me know whether the Saudis own 7% of the U.S., as Moore claims. Since
>> the post is still live in any news server worth its salt, I'm sure you can
>> respond in the thread cited.
>>

Scott

Bob Perez

unread,

Jul 13, 2004, 11:51:01 PM7/13/04

"Big Brother" <B...@bad.gov> wrote in message news:40F3E7CE...@bad.gov...

> Why don't you provide REAL links ?
> You hide where you are sending people.
> They don't know where they're going until it's too late.

I'm not worried about Scott's use of tinyurls, they're preferred over a link
that's too long to fit and although he's wrong about many things, he doesn't
strike me as particularly dangerous. And btw, since when is the actual name
of a site any assurance that it's safe?

Bob Perez

unread,

Jul 14, 2004, 12:47:22 AM7/14/04

"Scott Marquardt" <wasREM...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:wmt8ifgohbo8$.dlg@marquardts.org...

> You're claim that I "can't provide a link" belies your previous claim that
> you "keep reading [Kopel's critiques] looking for successful attacks on
the
> facts."

Not at all. What it means is that you have yet to provide any link
successfully challening Moore's facts. I'm not going to hold my breath
waiting, either.

> Let me know whether the Saudis own 7% of the U.S., as Moore claims.

This thread really is illuminating, because what we are witnessing here is
the complete breakdown of the attack on Moore's film. Unable to counter the
essence of the movie, Kopel is reduced to painstaking (and still wrong)
analyses of wildly peripheral trivia. Does he dispute the President's
paralysis in the face of our nation's greatest assault? No. Does he dispute
the fact that there was ample evidence provided by counter-terrorism
professionals of an imminent attack, right on the eve of the attack? No.
Does he dispute a linkage between the Bush family and the Saudis? No. Does
he dispute that President Bush said all the unseemly things that he is shown
to have said in this movie? No. The naked and unpleasant truth is that the
President makes the most powerful case against himself and one leaves this
movie thinking "OMG, this man is leading this country"? The points in
support of this visceral reaction form the essence of the movie and they are
all made using facts beyond dispute and are therefore not disputed by Kopel
or anyone else.

What we hear instead are incessant complaints about the juxtaposition of the
film footage, the "unfairness" of displaying Wolfowitz licking his comb, or
denials of the right to film in Arlington cemetery, and so on. Kopel is
reduced to arguing that Unger's comment that he had "heard figures as high
as $860 billion", doesn't produce the "seven percent" figure that Moore
postulates as part of his hypothetical " ... considering they own seven
percent..." comment. And this, based on reference to Census Burea statistics
(which are not exactly a testimonial to accuracy) and unsubstantiated
figures from the Bureau of Economic Statistics which have the effect, at
best, of coming to a different mathematical result of unknown magnitude but
still right smack in the neighborhood of unGodly huge. And this only if you
accept the speculation in Kopel's argument based on reference to the
unsubstantiated numbers he cites. In other words, he hasn't presented *any*
proof at all, and even if you grant him the grandest benefit of the doubt
and accept that he has demonstrated something he desperately wants us to
take on faith, even then his claim has the effect of changing the discussion
to one in which the Saudis "only" own some other HUGE percentage of American
equities. LOL!

All of this is of course a diversion from the essence of the movie which
remains unchallenged. Indeed, the images that Moore portrays cannot be
challenged because they emanate from the President himself, not any comments
from Unger or Moore. The Republicans had better drop this hopeless cause of
trying to dispute the facts of Moore's movie, and stop trying to discredit
the movie maker, and focus instead on trying to rehabilitate the image and
character of a severely damaged President, his own worst enemy.

Scott Marquardt

unread,

Jul 14, 2004, 1:49:00 AM7/14/04

Bob Perez opined thusly on Jul 13:

> "Scott Marquardt" <wasREM...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:wmt8ifgohbo8$.dlg@marquardts.org...
>
>> You're claim that I "can't provide a link" belies your previous claim that
>> you "keep reading [Kopel's critiques] looking for successful attacks on
> the
>> facts."
>
> Not at all. What it means is that you have yet to provide any link
> successfully challening Moore's facts. I'm not going to hold my breath
> waiting, either.
>
>> Let me know whether the Saudis own 7% of the U.S., as Moore claims.
>
> This thread really is illuminating, because what we are witnessing here is
> the complete breakdown of the attack on Moore's film. Unable to counter the
> essence of the movie,

Unable? Please explain (a) the essence of the movie, and (b) where Kopel
has made an attempt to counter it and has failed (proven unable).

> Kopel is reduced to painstaking (and still wrong)
> analyses of wildly peripheral trivia.

Fascinating. You link to Moore's provision of extensive documentary support
for his film, but you find such things "trivial." Right? If Kopel is
critiquing the kinds of things Moore is defending, then both are
trafficking in trivia. No?

> Does he dispute the President's
> paralysis in the face of our nation's greatest assault? No. Does he dispute
> the fact that there was ample evidence provided by counter-terrorism
> professionals of an imminent attack, right on the eve of the attack? No.

No you mention that Richard Clarke testified that even if everything he had
recommended had been implemented, 9/11 wouldn't have been prevented? No.

Your litany of what Kopel doesn't dispute is a grand tautology, though.
You're defining what's "trivial" as what Kopel disputes, and deeming
significant anything he doesn't.

> Does he dispute a linkage between the Bush family and the Saudis? No. Does
> he dispute that President Bush said all the unseemly things that he is shown
> to have said in this movie? No. The naked and unpleasant truth is that the
> President makes the most powerful case against himself and one leaves this
> movie thinking "OMG, this man is leading this country"? The points in
> support of this visceral reaction form the essence of the movie and they are
> all made using facts beyond dispute and are therefore not disputed by Kopel
> or anyone else.

You haven't read the critiques sufficiently then, apparently. The "visceral
reaction," rather than a rational conclusion issuing from informed analysis
of the context of the film's steeply redacted and narrated content, is a
cynical calculation on Moore's part. Just one example: the Alfred Smith
dinner. http://snipurl.com/7qt8

> What we hear instead are incessant complaints about the juxtaposition of the
> film footage,

Well yes, of course. That's because this is what Moore is justly criticized
for. The more "incessant" the warranted critiques on these grounds, the
more apparent it is that Moore's method is vulnerable ot such critiques.

This is nothing Kopel need apologize for.

> the "unfairness" of displaying Wolfowitz licking his comb,

You're really picking out the weakest of Kopel's material in characterizing
his critiques, you know that? It'd be good of you to engage his most
telling material, rather than pretend that it's all trivial.

> or
> denials of the right to film in Arlington cemetery, and so on.

I'm sorry, I must have missed where Kopel said anything about Arlington
cemetery -- or indeed, any cemetery at all. You seem to be taking him to
task for trivia that isn't even his. This doesn't sound like someone who
"keeps reading" Kopel. It sounds more like someone who's avoided him.

> Kopel is reduced to arguing that Unger's comment that he had "heard figures as high
> as $860 billion", doesn't produce the "seven percent" figure that Moore
> postulates as part of his hypothetical " ... considering they own seven
> percent..." comment.

"Reduced?"

LOL

Your use of rhetoric, just here, is insensible. But your concerns are also
insensible:

> And this, based on reference to Census Burea statistics
> (which are not exactly a testimonial to accuracy)

Can you explain what grounds you have for questioning the accuracy of the
particular statistics Kopel adduces? You seem to be poisoning the well or
engaging in ad hominem.

> and unsubstantiated
> figures from the Bureau of Economic Statistics

What would substantiate these figures? Moore's fact pages often cite
newspaper articles. How are these any more substantiated than what Kopel
offers?

Perhaps it would be good to compare the sources Moore and Kopel rely on,
and grant good faith credence where there's no obvious conflict between
sources. It seems to me that you're just expressing personal preference for
Moore's sources over Kopels.

> which have the effect, at
> best, of coming to a different mathematical result of unknown magnitude

Unknown? Not at all. Saudis have invested about 420 billion in the U.S.
Kopel cites reliable sources on this. If you wish to impeach Kopel's
sources, that's certainly an option but it's weak as argument. You'd do
well to rebut the statistics at issue, rather than seek to disparage
sources.

> but
> still right smack in the neighborhood of unGodly huge.

Then why would Moore feel compelled to dramatically exaggerate them?
Apparently Moore felt his case needed a bit more of a hysterical edge than
the real figures would provide. This signals the prospect that there's much
more of the same to be found.

> And this only if you
> accept the speculation in Kopel's argument based on reference to the
> unsubstantiated numbers he cites.

You'd do well to speak concretely in response to the pertinent post. Since
you're in the "pet goat" thread, it looks more like you're avoiding Kopel's
germane critique, than demonstrating good engagement with it.

I mean seriously. You're being wholly abstract just there, speaking in
generalizations, injecting pejoratives without offering examples justifying
it, and so forth.

> In other words, he hasn't presented *any*
> proof at all,

So why are you talking about it in a thread concerned with the most
inconsequential of Moore's gaffes? Why don't you take it up in situ, and
deal with Kopel's arguments themselves? And furthermore, why don't you
check out the links he provides on his web page, before you gratuitously
assert the lack of substantiation behind Kopel's work?

> and even if you grant him the grandest benefit of the doubt
> and accept that he has demonstrated something he desperately

When faced with arguments you're not willing to address, just attribute
emotive compulsions to the opposition. Rhetorically, though, this only
works for the speaker.

> wants us to
> take on faith,

Really? Then why does he cite sources -- like Moore? Why does he point out
which of his contentions Moore has not addressed from the war room bunker
at michaelmoore.com central?

> even then his claim has the effect of changing the discussion
> to one in which the Saudis "only" own some other HUGE percentage of American
> equities. LOL!

Again -- why, then, would Moore feel the need to exaggerate? You laugh out
loud when Kopel merely cites accurate figures, apparently in defense of a
feller who, by your own account, should have no need to exaggerate but
*does anyway*? Come now. Where's the laughter, really?

> All of this is of course

Oh yes, "of course."

> a diversion

BTW, how can anything "of course" be "a diversion?" That's a contradiction.

> from the essence of the movie which
> remains unchallenged. Indeed, the images that Moore portrays cannot be
> challenged because they emanate from the President himself, not any comments
> from Unger or Moore.

Not even Moore is extreme enough to state that he's presenting an objective
case. He's stated quite the contrary. If someone walks away from this film
believing their minds have been in naked exposure with reality, they're not
even acknowledging the extent to which Moore *honestly* admits of his spin
control.

> The Republicans had better drop this hopeless cause of
> trying to dispute the facts of Moore's movie,

Why? It's not hopeless, and your relative lack of engagement with the
actual content of the critiques -- while saying such things -- begins to
look like whistling in the dark.

Moore's not merely a pariah among Republicans. Many on the Left despise him
because even if he moves votes, he doesn't implant coherent sets of
expectations for alternative political realities. He blows so much hot air
cursing the darkness, that anyone else has a hard time lighting candles.

> and stop trying to discredit
> the movie maker, and focus instead on trying to rehabilitate the image and
> character of a severely damaged President, his own worst enemy.

I suspect you believe Moore's film has made that a fool's errand. Moore's
critics may not be so pessimistic -- they may believe they actually have
the space to comfortably tackle the movie maker himself. I doubt many will
observe such arm waving presented as in their interest, and take it with
much more than a grain of salt.

Scott

Bob Perez

unread,

Jul 14, 2004, 5:52:53 AM7/14/04

"Scott Marquardt" <wasREM...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:1uq3zz2j...@marquardts.org...

> > This thread really is illuminating, because what we are witnessing here
is
> > the complete breakdown of the attack on Moore's film. Unable to counter
the
> > essence of the movie,
>
> Unable? Please explain (a) the essence of the movie, and (b) where Kopel
> has made an attempt to counter it and has failed (proven unable).

(a) The essence of the movie -- and the greater issue underlying everything
in this thread -- is that President Bush is not fit to be President; the
supporting documentation leads ultimately to that conclusion and is
marshalled in support of Moore's often-stated purpose to try and unseat the
President.

(b) I referenced "this thread". Kopel is who *you* cite as your source.

I almost feel bad that you place such great reliance on his unsuccessful
efforts because you strike me as being one of the more eloquent and
knowledgable spokespersons for your cause. But that's just another
indication of something you may have already reconciled yourself to, that
the cause is hopeless. And, as I've said repeatedly, the particular tactic
of attacking Moore and his movie is a dog that just ain't gonna hunt.

> > Kopel is reduced to painstaking (and still wrong)
> > analyses of wildly peripheral trivia.
>
> Fascinating. You link to Moore's provision of extensive documentary
support
> for his film, but you find such things "trivial." Right? If Kopel is
> critiquing the kinds of things Moore is defending, then both are
> trafficking in trivia. No?

Yes. There are plenty of trivial and superfluous items in this movie, it's
not a perfect, efficient statement of its premise, it's not meant to be.
It's one man's artistic statement and it is by design meant to be
entertaining. Still, while Moore's film contains much of substance in
addition to these trivia, Kopel's efforts never go beyond them to the
substance. So, although they both may be trafficking in trivia, Moore uses
it as supplementary flavoring of his statement, while Kopel relies on it as
the object of his criticism, and thereby fails.

> > Does he dispute the President's
> > paralysis in the face of our nation's greatest assault? No. Does he
dispute
> > the fact that there was ample evidence provided by counter-terrorism
> > professionals of an imminent attack, right on the eve of the attack? No.
>
> No you mention that Richard Clarke testified that even if everything he
had
> recommended had been implemented, 9/11 wouldn't have been prevented? No.

Clarke's contribution was only one piece and other members of the CSG had
contributions to make that provided the emerging picture of an impending
attack. Is it seriously your position that the evidence was not worthy of
consideration because in retrospect it alone would not have prevented the
attacks? If so, remind me never to put you in charge of security.

> Your litany of what Kopel doesn't dispute is a grand tautology, though.
> You're defining what's "trivial" as what Kopel disputes, and deeming
> significant anything he doesn't.

Not at all, I made a clear distinction between the matters of substance put
forth by Moore, and the matters of trivia dealt with by Kopel. My
condolences to anyone who fails to see the difference.

> You haven't read the critiques sufficiently then, apparently. The
"visceral
> reaction," rather than a rational conclusion issuing from informed
analysis
> of the context of the film's steeply redacted and narrated content, is a
> cynical calculation on Moore's part. Just one example: the Alfred Smith
> dinner. http://snipurl.com/7qt8

Notwithstanding your characterization of Moore's artistic technique, it
remains true that the President spoke these words and invoked images that he
knew would ring true enough to be funny in this context. This is why Moore
is able to use it so effectively, because most people are not surprised at
the thought that this man would make this comment. If any other President
had said it, it would have been understood to be a joke. Mr. Bush has not
earned this assumption.

> Well yes, of course. That's because this is what Moore is justly
criticized
> for. The more "incessant" the warranted critiques on these grounds, the
> more apparent it is that Moore's method is vulnerable ot such critiques.

Particularly when there are no substantive grounds on which to complain.

> > the "unfairness" of displaying Wolfowitz licking his comb,
>
> You're really picking out the weakest of Kopel's material in
characterizing
> his critiques, you know that? It'd be good of you to engage his most
> telling material, rather than pretend that it's all trivial.

I'd be interested to know what you consider his more telling material. After
all, you're the Original Poster who chose to title this thread "Moore lies
about gradeschool stories".

> I'm sorry, I must have missed where Kopel said anything about Arlington

Actually, what you missed was my reference above to "this thread" and its
failure to produce any successful challenges on the facts portrayed in
Moore's movie.

> Can you explain what grounds you have for questioning the accuracy of the
> particular statistics Kopel adduces?

That would be impossible because the links you have provided to Kopel's work
do not provide citations to his "sources". It appears that he simply asserts
with the knowledge that his supporters will accept his claims on faith.

> What would substantiate these figures? Moore's fact pages often cite
> newspaper articles. How are these any more substantiated than what Kopel
> offers?

You said it yourself. Moore *cites* sources with dates and other relevant
references that allow the careful reader to validate for himself claims
made.

> You'd do
> well to rebut the statistics at issue, rather than seek to disparage
> sources.

If you expect me to search through all Census Bureau figures or Bureau of
Economic Statistics volumes in search of sources to validate Kopel's points,
get used to disappointment.

> > but
> > still right smack in the neighborhood of unGodly huge.
>
> Then why would Moore feel compelled to dramatically exaggerate them?
> Apparently Moore felt his case needed a bit more of a hysterical edge than
> the real figures would provide.

That's a fair question, but I don't take the conspiratorial view you do.
What I see is an estimate based on approximations within comfortable range
of the exact (and probably uknowable) ratios. I don't believe there's
sufficient value in attempting the futile exercise of pinning down exactly
how much America there is to "own" and therefore what the exact percentage
is of Saudi participation. No one of any credibility questions the fact that
Saudis have a huge investment in America. No valid point is served by
Kopel's speculation of the origin of Unger's estimates, particularly when
the difference is between $700 billion and $860 billion! After all, $700
billion here, $700 billion there, and pretty soon you're talking about real
money.

Once again, the great reliance placed on this kind of exercise only
highlights further the lack of anything important to criticize. Given the
formidable talents that you and Kopel bring to this challenge, I can only
conclude that Moore's movie remains unassailable.

> You'd do well to speak concretely in response to the pertinent post.

Concreteness provided above.

> So why are you talking about it in a thread concerned with the most
> inconsequential of Moore's gaffes?

Because the desperate nature of this effort is best epitomized here. Reading
this thread was a complete coffee-through-the-nose experience for me, and
provided an appropriate launching point for the discussion.

> Why don't you take it up in situ

As much as I admire your tenacity and prolific dedication to your cause, I
honestly don't have the time, patience or desire to detail all of Kopel's
failings for you. I think I've made my points sufficiently by simply
responding to the issues that you have chosen to highlight. If you find
these inadequate representations, perhaps you should consider choosing your
battles more carefully.

> > All of this is of course
>
> Oh yes, "of course."
>
> > a diversion
>
> BTW, how can anything "of course" be "a diversion?" That's a
contradiction.

I'm tempted to leave this quote in as further evidence of how far you are
reaching now, but I really should kill it out of mercy.

> > The Republicans had better drop this hopeless cause of
> > trying to dispute the facts of Moore's movie,
>
> Why? It's not hopeless, and your relative lack of engagement with the
> actual content of the critiques -- while saying such things -- begins to
> look like whistling in the dark.

It is hopeless, for reasons I've stated elsewhere. While you and I spar over
Moore and his movie, the real damage that's been done remains unaddressed.
As we speak, buyers for the military exchange are picking up Fahrenheit 9/11
for military base distribution because of all the fuss being made over the
movie. These images will continue to sink into the public consciousness,
oblivious to any consensus that may or may not develop concerning the
factual content, or Moore's status as a pariah.

> > and stop trying to discredit
> > the movie maker, and focus instead on trying to rehabilitate the image
and
> > character of a severely damaged President, his own worst enemy.

> I suspect you believe Moore's film has made that a fool's errand.

Actually, I would enjoy taking on the assignment of attempting to
rehabilitate the President's image. I think it is doable, and I suspect that
a good portion of Mr. Bush's campaign war chest will be put to this purpose
with creative media. If instead they continue down the path of attacking
Kerry with the servicable but aging "flip-flop" issue, then I think it will
be a very close contest where the winner will be the one whom the voters
dislike the most. And at this point I wouldn't bet on the President.

--
Bob Perez

"Stupidness is not the opposite of smartness, but rather the opposite of
wisdom"
- Robert Sternberg, "Why Smart People can be so Stupid"

Shannon Jacobs

unread,

Jul 14, 2004, 9:50:04 AM7/14/04

Any guesses what he's ranting about this time? Content free grammar par
excellance?

Scott Marquardt wrote:
<snip>

> Find just one link in my history of usenet posting that has sent
> anyone to a dangerous or objectionable site (some witless Moore fan
> will cite every snurl to sites critical of Moore as being
> "objectionable," doubtless).
>
> No one is obliged to follow any links I provide. If they do, and do
> habitually, they can easily arrive at conclusions about whether my
> links may be trusted. Any interlocutor who doesn't trust my good
> faith in providing links is not likely to lend credence to much
> that I have to say anyway, so little is lost in the conversation if
> such parties do not avail themselves of the links.
>
> I think you're being a bit paranoid.

<snip>

--
Do you agree that democracy is good and depends on serious discussion
of the issues? If so, don't reply to off topic, ad hominem garbage.
Send it to "The vile spewers of mindless blather thread".

Scott Marquardt

unread,

Jul 14, 2004, 11:26:45 AM7/14/04

Bob Perez opined thusly on Jul 14:

> "Scott Marquardt" <wasREM...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1uq3zz2j...@marquardts.org...
>
>>> This thread really is illuminating, because what we are witnessing here
> is
>>> the complete breakdown of the attack on Moore's film. Unable to counter
> the
>>> essence of the movie,
>>
>> Unable? Please explain (a) the essence of the movie, and (b) where Kopel
>> has made an attempt to counter it and has failed (proven unable).
>
> (a) The essence of the movie -- and the greater issue underlying everything
> in this thread -- is that President Bush is not fit to be President;

Where has Kopel demonstated either (a) a will or (b) an inability to
"counter the essence?" You're referring to a "breakdown" of critique of
Moore's film, but this depends on some prior sense in which the current
critiques weren't a primary concern. You haven't shown this for Kopel (or,
for that matter, anyone else).

> the
> supporting documentation leads ultimately to that conclusion and is
> marshalled in support of Moore's often-stated purpose to try and unseat the
> President.

You've spoken of this "supporting documentation" as trivia whose critique
exposes the insignificance of critics' efforts. And yet you acknowledge
that just such material "leads ultimately to" Moore's essential conclusion.
If the material's not important (as you alleged in your last post), why
would Moore use it? If it is important (as you here suggest by
acknowledging that it "supports" and "leads ultimately to" Moore's
conclusion, why would you deem it insignificant when critics successfully
counter these elements?

> (b) I referenced "this thread". Kopel is who *you* cite as your source.

I'm not sure how "this thread" supports your remark, either. You're
certainly entitled to impressions and intuitions (most of which,
unsubstantiated, I'll ignore in what follows).

> I almost feel bad that you place such great reliance on his unsuccessful
> efforts because you strike me as being one of the more eloquent and
> knowledgable spokespersons for your cause. But that's just another
> indication of something you may have already reconciled yourself to, that
> the cause is hopeless. And, as I've said repeatedly, the particular tactic
> of attacking Moore and his movie is a dog that just ain't gonna hunt.
>
>>> Kopel is reduced to painstaking (and still wrong)
>>> analyses of wildly peripheral trivia.
>>
>> Fascinating. You link to Moore's provision of extensive documentary
> support
>> for his film, but you find such things "trivial." Right? If Kopel is
>> critiquing the kinds of things Moore is defending, then both are
>> trafficking in trivia. No?
>
> Yes.

But I thought that these elements "lead ultimately" to Moore's conclusion.

> There are plenty of trivial and superfluous items in this movie, it's
> not a perfect, efficient statement of its premise, it's not meant to be.
> It's one man's artistic statement and it is by design meant to be
> entertaining.

But Kopel isn't critiquing its entertainment value. He's critiquing its
factual base and, equally importantly, the significance Moore's artistic
use of material imparts to these elements in support of his thesis. I
wouldn't call Moore mythopoeic, exactly, but he is a story teller (as any
documentarian must be). Kopel's just demythologizing his work.

> Still, while Moore's film contains much of substance in
> addition to these trivia, Kopel's efforts never go beyond them to the
> substance.

You're still conflicted about whether these elements are "trivial" with
mere entertainment value (thus Kopel is wasting his time), or "lead
ultimately" to Moore's conclusion as supporting material (thus Kopel is
not). It might be well if you'd engage a representative sample of Kopel's
material and see whether the material is trivial or essential to Moore's
thesis. Is the material Kopel treats merely fluff in Moore's film? Not
supporting Moore's thesis? Or is the material indeed in support of Moore's
thesis, as used by him in the film?

> So, although they both may be trafficking in trivia, Moore uses
> it as supplementary flavoring of his statement,

Never a substantive point that "leads ultimately" to his conclusions?
You're sincerely saying that Kopel treats only "flavor supplements" in his
critiques? Because if you're actually willing to say that, my intuition
hears you whistling in the dark, at this point.

> while Kopel relies on it as
> the object of his criticism, and thereby fails.

What criteria do you apply, as you look at Moore's "fact" pages, to
determine whether the facts are trivial entertainment or essentially in
support of Moore's conclusions? Do you apply these same criteria to the
issues Kopel treats?

>>> Does he dispute the President's
>>> paralysis in the face of our nation's greatest assault? No. Does he
> dispute
>>> the fact that there was ample evidence provided by counter-terrorism
>>> professionals of an imminent attack, right on the eve of the attack? No.
>>
>> No you mention that Richard Clarke testified that even if everything he
> had
>> recommended had been implemented, 9/11 wouldn't have been prevented? No.
>
> Clarke's contribution was only one piece

Each element Moore includes in his film is also just "one piece."

> and other members of the CSG had
> contributions to make that provided the emerging picture of an impending
> attack. Is it seriously your position that the evidence

Which evidence, specifically? Please be very specific. Which evidence that
the administration actually had in its possession -- or had been offered by
other sources -- are you speaking about? I've cited "only" one piece, so
it'd be good of you to cite "at least" one piece.

> was not worthy of
> consideration because in retrospect it alone would not have prevented the
> attacks? If so, remind me never to put you in charge of security.
>
>> Your litany of what Kopel doesn't dispute is a grand tautology, though.
>> You're defining what's "trivial" as what Kopel disputes, and deeming
>> significant anything he doesn't.
>
> Not at all, I made a clear distinction between the matters of substance put
> forth by Moore, and the matters of trivia dealt with by Kopel.

No, you haven't. You've claimed there is one. You haven't identified which
of Kopel's critiques are trivial and which are substantial. Indeed, Kopel
*himself* has shown this better than you have, by explicitly acknowledging
the limited value of a few of his critiques within such critiques
themselves.

> My
> condolences to anyone who fails to see the difference.

In other words, you'll stand by what amounts to a gratuitous allegation
that what Kopel treats is only those elements which do not support Moore's
thesis?

>> You haven't read the critiques sufficiently then, apparently. The
> "visceral
>> reaction," rather than a rational conclusion issuing from informed
> analysis
>> of the context of the film's steeply redacted and narrated content, is a
>> cynical calculation on Moore's part. Just one example: the Alfred Smith
>> dinner. http://snipurl.com/7qt8
>
> Notwithstanding your characterization of Moore's artistic technique, it
> remains true that the President spoke these words and invoked images that he
> knew would ring true enough to be funny in this context.

But Moore's not using them for mere humor's sake. Please see Kopel on this.
Indeed, this particular comment by Bush isn't especially homorous even in
Moore's context. It is, however, freighted with significance by Moore.

> This is why Moore
> is able to use it so effectively, because most people are not surprised at
> the thought that this man would make this comment. If any other President
> had said it, it would have been understood to be a joke.

When this president said it, I was able to understand it as a joke -- long
before I read anything of Kopel's or understood the context. Looks like an
issue of perspective, doesn't it? But you're describing an incapacity of
Bush's opponents to understand the statement for what it actually was. That
Bush's opponents cannot imagine the possibility of such a remark being
facetious speaks more to their prejudices than anything else -- inasmuch as
the remark was indeed facetious.

Anyone who can caricature -- and that's really the word, isn't it? --
himself this way is probably not as vulnerable as those who take this
caricature as his portrait suppose.

> Mr. Bush has not
> earned this assumption.
>
>> Well yes, of course. That's because this is what Moore is justly
> criticized
>> for. The more "incessant" the warranted critiques on these grounds, the
>> more apparent it is that Moore's method is vulnerable ot such critiques.
>
> Particularly when there are no substantive grounds on which to complain.
>
>>> the "unfairness" of displaying Wolfowitz licking his comb,
>>
>> You're really picking out the weakest of Kopel's material in
> characterizing
>> his critiques, you know that? It'd be good of you to engage his most
>> telling material, rather than pretend that it's all trivial.
>
> I'd be interested to know what you consider his more telling material.

Start with material that's not categorized by Kopel himself as merely
pointing out Moore's "cheap shots" (the comb thing). And heck -- start with
the first three on Kopel's list -- the election issues. No sense
easter-eggin' around the whole list when the critiques of Moore's film are
telling from the get-go.

> After
> all, you're the Original Poster who chose to title this thread "Moore lies
> about gradeschool stories".

And do you remember my point?

|| Moore fans who reason that if there were errors Moore would admit them,
|| would do well to see whether Moore can admit even such a ridiculously
|| low-stakes error. Moore's critics, meanwhile, needn't expect any
|| concessions from Moore on more significant issues so long as he can't even
|| admit to such mild errors.

>> I'm sorry, I must have missed where Kopel said anything about Arlington

>
> Actually, what you missed was my reference above to "this thread"

You said:

| What we hear instead are incessant complaints about the juxtaposition of the

| film footage, the "unfairness" of displaying Wolfowitz licking his comb, or

| denials of the right to film in Arlington cemetery, and so on.

Who introduced juxtaposition of film footage, Wolfowitz's comb, and
Arlington cemetery to the the thread? If these complaints were "incessant"
in "this thread," where are they?

> and its
> failure to produce any successful challenges on the facts portrayed in
> Moore's movie.

Wishful thinking. You're obviously not reading Kopel's material.

>> Can you explain what grounds you have for questioning the accuracy of the
>> particular statistics Kopel adduces?
>
> That would be impossible because the links you have provided to Kopel's work
> do not provide citations to his "sources".

Really? Gee, I wonder what all this would be, then?

Those are the links on Kopel's page -- with generic header and footer links
removed.

Furthermore, in the text of his critiques he specifically cites sources.

You were saying?

> It appears that he simply asserts
> with the knowledge that his supporters will accept his claims on faith.

Want to rephrase things a bit?

>> What would substantiate these figures? Moore's fact pages often cite
>> newspaper articles. How are these any more substantiated than what Kopel
>> offers?
>
> You said it yourself. Moore *cites* sources with dates and other relevant
> references that allow the careful reader to validate for himself claims
> made.

Kopel has shown that what Moore cites is not always relevant to critiques
of his materials and method. See this at the end of many, many of the
critiques, where Kopel acknowledges what Moore *does* cite, and points out
what Moore does *not* cite -- materials supporting the matter in dispute.

This is standard method for Moore. Offer a flood of supporting citations --
sufficient to persuade weak minds "how could he be wrong" and distracting
them by sheer volume from checking whether the sources Moore adduces are
sufficient to defend his work from the *actual* critiques. In other words,
adducing sources for questions not in dispute is not to the point -- but
Moore does it.

>> You'd do
>> well to rebut the statistics at issue, rather than seek to disparage
>> sources.
>
> If you expect me to search through all Census Bureau figures or Bureau of
> Economic Statistics volumes in search of sources to validate Kopel's points,
> get used to disappointment.

Same with Moore, eh?

It's an issue of who you trust, isn't it? In your case, the statistics
don't support Moore, so you dismiss them. How is this any better than some
of Moore's opponents who just write him off as a liar without checking the
facts?

But just here, you're merely trying to cast my critique of your *dismissal*
of the statistics at issue as an unreasonable insistence that you "search
through all Census Bureau figures." That's not the case -- but it's
rhetorically interesting.

>>> but
>>> still right smack in the neighborhood of unGodly huge.
>>
>> Then why would Moore feel compelled to dramatically exaggerate them?
>> Apparently Moore felt his case needed a bit more of a hysterical edge than
>> the real figures would provide.
>
> That's a fair question, but I don't take the conspiratorial view you do.

This isn't a conspiratorial view. Nice attempt at rhetoric, though. In
conspiratorial thinking, the Huge Plot is out of sight. Just here, the
corpus of exaggeration is in plain view. I'm not offering a paranoid
explanation for something not in evidence. To the contrary, I'm holding you
accountable for a logical consequence of your view, just here, and asking
you to supply the answer to a conundrum. If all this stuff isn't essential,
why would Moore take pains to research sources and splice it all in?

> What I see is an estimate based on approximations within comfortable range
> of the exact (and probably uknowable) ratios. I don't believe there's
> sufficient value in attempting the futile exercise of pinning down exactly
> how much America there is to "own" and therefore what the exact percentage
> is of Saudi participation.

But shouldn't Moore at least be *correct* in his presentation of
information? Do you see -- at all -- that you've now shifted from defending
Moore against putative "trivial" critiques to defending what you're
apparently willing to tolerate as sloppy work on substantive matters?

> No one of any credibility questions the fact that
> Saudis have a huge investment in America.

Not even Kopel, who, in the very critique at issue, *laments* Saudi
connections with the Bush's.

> No valid point is served by
> Kopel's speculation of the origin of Unger's estimates, particularly when
> the difference is between $700 billion and $860 billion! After all, $700
> billion here, $700 billion there, and pretty soon you're talking about real
> money.

But Kopel has shown that even the $700 billion figure is not correct. Of
course, you haven't examined Koppel's sources -- since you don't believe he
cites any. ;-)

At any rate, none of this amounts to owning "7% of America," as Moore
alleges and Kopel easily shows. Moore is giving bogus impressions. And just
above, you've defended this practice.

> Once again, the great reliance placed on this kind of exercise only
> highlights further the lack of anything important to criticize. Given the
> formidable talents that you and Kopel bring to this challenge, I can only
> conclude that Moore's movie remains unassailable.

LOL

You're really tugging on the rhetorical bootstraps in this conversation.
;-)

I urge you to reply to actual critiques in their respective threads, and
acknowledge and rebut Kopel's published sources if you have the will to do
so.

>> You'd do well to speak concretely in response to the pertinent post.
>
> Concreteness provided above.
>
>> So why are you talking about it in a thread concerned with the most
>> inconsequential of Moore's gaffes?
>
> Because the desperate nature of this effort is best epitomized here. Reading
> this thread was a complete coffee-through-the-nose experience for me, and
> provided an appropriate launching point for the discussion.

That doesn't explain why you're steering clear of the critiques themselves,
while alluding to them with as long a pole as you can find.

>> Why don't you take it up in situ
>
> As much as I admire your tenacity and prolific dedication to your cause, I
> honestly don't have the time, patience or desire to detail all of Kopel's
> failings for you.

By now, you could have showcased several. You have time for rhetoric, why
not reason? And at any rate, you're masking the issue. You don't need to
detail "all" of Kopel's failings. Your "need," without evoking Maslow, is
to be honest enough to be agnostic about issues both in Moore's film and in
Kopel's critiques that you aren't willing or able to confirm to your own
satisfaction.

I pity the man who trusts anyone implicitly.

> I think I've made my points sufficiently by simply
> responding to the issues that you have chosen to highlight. If you find
> these inadequate representations, perhaps you should consider choosing your
> battles more carefully.
>
>>> All of this is of course
>>
>> Oh yes, "of course."
>>
>>> a diversion
>>
>> BTW, how can anything "of course" be "a diversion?" That's a
>> contradiction.
>
> I'm tempted to leave this quote in as further evidence of how far you are
> reaching now, but I really should kill it out of mercy.

Why? If the argument reduces to rhetoric -- you "don't have the time,
patience, or desire to detail all of Kopel's failings" -- then isn't
rhetoric all we have left?

>>> The Republicans had better drop this hopeless cause of
>>> trying to dispute the facts of Moore's movie,
>>
>> Why? It's not hopeless, and your relative lack of engagement with the
>> actual content of the critiques -- while saying such things -- begins to
>> look like whistling in the dark.
>
> It is hopeless, for reasons I've stated elsewhere. While you and I spar over
> Moore and his movie, the real damage that's been done remains unaddressed.
> As we speak, buyers for the military exchange are picking up Fahrenheit 9/11
> for military base distribution because of all the fuss being made over the
> movie.

Please cite a source that indicates that their reason is "because of all

the fuss being made over the movie."

And be aware that you're speaking with a veteran who understands the
demographic.

> These images will continue to sink into the public consciousness,
> oblivious to any consensus that may or may not develop concerning the
> factual content, or Moore's status as a pariah.
>
>>> and stop trying to discredit
>>> the movie maker, and focus instead on trying to rehabilitate the image
> and
>>> character of a severely damaged President, his own worst enemy.
>
>> I suspect you believe Moore's film has made that a fool's errand.
>
> Actually, I would enjoy taking on the assignment of attempting to
> rehabilitate the President's image. I think it is doable, and I suspect that
> a good portion of Mr. Bush's campaign war chest will be put to this purpose
> with creative media. If instead they continue down the path of attacking
> Kerry with the servicable but aging "flip-flop" issue, then I think it will
> be a very close contest where the winner will be the one whom the voters
> dislike the most. And at this point I wouldn't bet on the President.

Scott

Bob Perez

unread,

Jul 14, 2004, 5:07:06 PM7/14/04

"Scott Marquardt" <wasREM...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:8m1hz003...@marquardts.org...

> You've spoken of this "supporting documentation" as trivia whose critique
> exposes the insignificance of critics' efforts. And yet you acknowledge
> that just such material "leads ultimately to" Moore's essential
conclusion.

Not surprisingly, some of Moore's material is trivial, some of it is
substantive. Orthogonally, some of it is "supporting documentation" of his
thesis, some of it is filler for entertainment value. These really aren't
hard concepts to grasp.

> But I thought that these elements "lead ultimately" to Moore's conclusion.

Well, maybe hard for some.

> Kopel's just demythologizing his work.

Here we are making progress, I would agree with this characterization.
Kopel's efforts (and yours) amount to a decent attempt to demythologize
Moore's work. They don't have the effect of countering the impact I believe
the movie will have on the electorate, that effort will require a far
greater investment elsewhere. But I suppose some demythologizing is always a
good thing, clearing the way for viewers to apply more critical thinking to
debates over the factual issues raised. Warning: Republicn demythologizers
will have to balance their efforts carefully lest they win this battle and
lose their war.

> You're still conflicted about whether these elements are "trivial" with
> mere entertainment value (thus Kopel is wasting his time), or "lead
> ultimately" to Moore's conclusion as supporting material (thus Kopel is
> not).

Ok, definitely hard for some.

> Which evidence, specifically? Please be very specific. Which evidence that
> the administration actually had in its possession -- or had been offered
by
> other sources -- are you speaking about? I've cited "only" one piece, so
> it'd be good of you to cite "at least" one piece.

Just to name one, CIA Director George Tenet had explicitly warned the
President prior to September 11 about the immediacy and seriousness of a bin
Laden threat. These warnings derived from a variety of different source
material, most of which was embodied in the President's Daily Brief (PDB)s.
That the President chose to ignore this threat is now history. I will not
here attempt to produce other evidence, but reasonable people can fairly
conclude that Tenet (who is not shy) did not confine his remarks to the
President and that other members of the administration were aware of Tenet's
warnings regarding the threats. The decision of administration officials
(Rice, Cheney, Rumsfeld) to de-prioritize or simply ignore the explicit
threats emanating from a) the chief counterterrorism official in the
government and b) the head of the CIA, boggles the mind.

> You haven't identified which
> of Kopel's critiques are trivial and which are substantial. Indeed, Kopel
> *himself* has shown this better than you have, by explicitly acknowledging
> the limited value of a few of his critiques within such critiques
> themselves.

On this I agree. I have never assumed the responsibility to take on a
wholesale dismantling of all of Kopel's work. He is your cited source on a
point, not mine. I've successfully responded to points you have raised in
this discussion as they've arisen and as I've stated earlier, it's not my
intention to document for you all of Kopel's failings. Indeed, I think that
it's safe to assume that as you are one of his most strident defenders, you
are sure to present the most powerful and representative of his arguments.
This was your opportunity and I trust that you've done that.

> But Moore's not using them for mere humor's sake. Please see Kopel on
this.
> Indeed, this particular comment by Bush isn't especially homorous even in
> Moore's context. It is, however, freighted with significance by Moore.

The comments of the President are obviously made in jest to the degree that
he was not surprised by ensuing laughter (I believe even his most rabid
critics would agree). The question is, what's the joke? What Kopel's context
provides is another perspective on the nature of the joke, he provides a
missing piece. It turns out that the President was poking fun at himself in
the great tradition of this event. Moore's audience doesn't know this fact
and so they are left to wonder why the President would make such
un-Presidential remarks. But that's ok because under ordinary circumstances
the comments should be self-explanatory. Had any other President made the
comment (with the possible exception of Nixon), the audience would have
concluded at some level that there was some reasonable explanation (a roast,
etc). Here Moore capitalizes on the President's reputation and image by
handicapping the audience and forcing them to rely on their assessment of
the President's character in order to get the joke. Complaints from Bush
supporters arise because they are too keenly aware that their man will be
*first* suspected of making a very different kind of joke, one which comes
at the expense of others, and not himself. Otherwise, what is there to
complain about? Moore's artistry led him to realize that by stripping the
audience of the explanatory crutch, they would be left to assess the
situation based on their assessment of the President's character. Frankly,
it was a brilliant touch and obviously quite effective in the unique case of
this President.

> > That would be impossible because the links you have provided to Kopel's
work
> > do not provide citations to his "sources".
>
> Really? Gee, I wonder what all this would be, then?

Again, I was unable to find these citations as I've said, "in the links
which you have provided". That Kopel has them on his page is interesting and
I suggest that if you are going to try and prop him up as a credible source
you might want to include these as I have done with my links to Moore's
links to his sources.

> Furthermore, in the text of his critiques he specifically cites sources.

If that were true I would have been able to link to the data he claims
exists in the databases of the Census Bureau and the Bureau of Economic
Statistics on this issue. I cannot. The text of his material which you
provide contains naked assertions of these "facts" and no links or even
citations to volumes, pages, etc. I read through the "text of his critique"
on this point and found no such links or citations, just assertions based on
these "sources".

> This is standard method for Moore. Offer a flood of supporting
citations --
> sufficient to persuade weak minds "how could he be wrong" and distracting
> them by sheer volume from checking whether the sources Moore adduces are
> sufficient to defend his work from the *actual* critiques. In other words,
> adducing sources for questions not in dispute is not to the point -- but
> Moore does it.

To the contrary, I am witness to Moore's citation to sources which actually
back up his assertions. And unlike some of his detractors, he provides the
links, dates, volumes, page references, etc. that actually back up his work.
Would that his opponents would consistently do the same.

> It's an issue of who you trust, isn't it?

And here you bring us full circle to the point I've made repeatedly and
where I will now depart the thread (and probably the newsgroup). As PJ
O'Rourke asks, "When is the last time anyone changed their mind on an issue
after listening to talk radio"? Our purpose here isn't to persuade others,
that's a presumptuous and futile exercise in the anonymous jungle of Usenet
or talk shows. In these purely verbal media, people hear what they want to
hear and all of these exercises ultimately reduce to competitions in
debatesmanship and oneupsmanship. High entertainment value, low productivity
value.

Film, now *that's* a whole different thing. The combined impact of visual
and musical images (particularly when masterfully assembled) is large and
enduring. What Moore has done more than anything else, is make clear that
documentary films are the next communications revolution, more powerful in
reach and impact than the World Wibe Web or blogs. Take a look at the hot
documentaries emerging on the scene recently ("The Corporation", "Control
Room", "Supersize Me") and even more importantly, those coming soon (e.g.,
"Outfoxed", a documentary detailing internal workings and biases of the Fox
News network, and premiering this weekend) and it's clear that the Left has
found a powerful new voice that is reaching out to new audiences that will
never surf the web or read a blog. All those Hollywood celebrities
associated with liberal causes now have far more to contribute than simply
an endorsement or a check. Offers are coming in to provide rights to use
songs, film clips, voice overs, narrations, starring roles, etc. Unless and
until the Right can counter this with its own equivalent push (and please,
you can surely do better than Disney's "America's Heart and Soul"), this
revolutionizing communications channel is going to be owned by the Left. I
don't like that and I don't think you do, either.

> This isn't a conspiratorial view. Nice attempt at rhetoric, though.

At this point the discussion devolves to predictable accusations of
"rhetoric" (I count at least six such accusations from you). Welcome to
Usenet. As I said, I'm not here to persuade anyone of anything nor am I
inclined to present the case against the unfortunate Kopel. These forums
rarely provide good information, but they do make good entertainment.

I applaud your efforts, you're the most gifted poster I've engaged with for
some time. Pity you don't put all that energy into something that has the
potential to actually make a difference.

Good luck, and thanks for the dialog. I'm off to the movies!

Scott Marquardt

unread,

Jul 15, 2004, 3:02:10 AM7/15/04

Bob Perez opined thusly on Jul 14:

> "Scott Marquardt" <wasREM...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:8m1hz003...@marquardts.org...
>
>> You've spoken of this "supporting documentation" as trivia whose critique
>> exposes the insignificance of critics' efforts. And yet you acknowledge
>> that just such material "leads ultimately to" Moore's essential
>> conclusion.
>
> Not surprisingly, some of Moore's material is trivial, some of it is
> substantive. Orthogonally, some of it is "supporting documentation" of his
> thesis, some of it is filler for entertainment value. These really aren't
> hard concepts to grasp.

Of course not. But you've spoken as if Kopel invariably is concerned only
with critiquing Moore's throwaway material. Call it a difference in point
of view, but I don't see that. I have no objection if ennui keeps you at
arms' length.

>> But I thought that these elements "lead ultimately" to Moore's conclusion.
>
> Well, maybe hard for some.
>
>> Kopel's just demythologizing his work.
>
> Here we are making progress, I would agree with this characterization.
> Kopel's efforts (and yours) amount to a decent attempt to demythologize
> Moore's work. They don't have the effect of countering the impact I believe
> the movie will have on the electorate, that effort will require a far
> greater investment elsewhere.

I remain skeptical of such assertions. The film's effect on swing voters
will depend in large measure on how much credibility they're willing to
attach to Moore. Swing voters are not generally capricious, and during a
year when more traditionally lucent and cogent Democratic voices have been
drowned in a sea of Moorish sarcasm, such voters are likely to wonder
whether the Democratic icon of a braying ass isn't a bit too close for
comfort.

> But I suppose some demythologizing is always a
> good thing, clearing the way for viewers to apply more critical thinking

Demythologizing *is* critical thinking. If what you're saying is that
demythologizing succeeds in dragging superficial thinkers into deeper
currents, I agree.

> to
> debates over the factual issues raised. Warning: Republicn demythologizers
> will have to balance their efforts carefully lest they win this battle and
> lose their war.
>
>> You're still conflicted about whether these elements are "trivial" with
>> mere entertainment value (thus Kopel is wasting his time), or "lead
>> ultimately" to Moore's conclusion as supporting material (thus Kopel is
>> not).
>
> Ok, definitely hard for some.
>
>> Which evidence, specifically? Please be very specific. Which evidence that
>> the administration actually had in its possession -- or had been offered
> by
>> other sources -- are you speaking about? I've cited "only" one piece, so
>> it'd be good of you to cite "at least" one piece.
>
> Just to name one, CIA Director George Tenet had explicitly warned the
> President prior to September 11 about the immediacy and seriousness of a bin
> Laden threat. These warnings derived from a variety of different source
> material, most of which was embodied in the President's Daily Brief (PDB)s.

Yes. And these non-specific warnings reminded the President that "the FBI
is conducting approximately 70 full-field investigations throughout the
U.S. that it considers bin Laden-related. CIA and the FBI are investigating
a call to our embassy in the UAE in May saying that a group or bin Laden
supporters was in the U.S. planning attacks with explosives."

In other words, contrary to:

> That the President chose to ignore this threat is now history.

. . . Bush did not "ignore" the threat. The "Bin Laden determined to strike
in US" brief gave Bush reason to believe that sufficient actions were
already in progress. "70 full-field investigations throughout the U.S." and
an investigation of the most recent information from the UAE is not
"nothing happening." What -- you'd have had Bush say "let's see if we can
come up with some more investigations somewhere"?

In hindsight, it's easy to say that a person could have done more. It's
always true that a person could have done more (if I give a panhandler a
buck, it's true that I could just as well have given him two. Or three.)
But at the time, a president seeing that 70 investigations -- and a fresh
one on the front burner -- are in progress, has reason to be confident that
his agencies are on the ball.

> I will not
> here attempt to produce other evidence, but reasonable people can fairly
> conclude that Tenet (who is not shy) did not confine his remarks to the
> President and that other members of the administration were aware of Tenet's
> warnings regarding the threats.

Well yes. And the FBI was too, apparently, if the brief is to be believed.

> The decision of administration officials
> (Rice, Cheney, Rumsfeld) to de-prioritize or simply ignore the explicit
> threats emanating from a) the chief counterterrorism official in the
> government and b) the head of the CIA, boggles the mind.

It boggles the mind that some people can't imagine a president feeling
reassured when reading of 70 ongoing investigations and front-burner
priority being given to the latest intel from the UAE.

>> You haven't identified which
>> of Kopel's critiques are trivial and which are substantial. Indeed, Kopel
>> *himself* has shown this better than you have, by explicitly acknowledging
>> the limited value of a few of his critiques within such critiques
>> themselves.
>
> On this I agree. I have never assumed the responsibility to take on a
> wholesale dismantling of all of Kopel's work. He is your cited source on a
> point, not mine. I've successfully responded to points you have raised in
> this discussion as they've arisen and as I've stated earlier, it's not my
> intention to document for you all of Kopel's failings.

Nor any, it appears. ;-)

> Indeed, I think that
> it's safe to assume that as you are one of his most strident defenders,

No genuine critique has been made against which anyone might feel compelled
to offer a defense -- no critique except on vague, theoretical points of
principle, that is. I find myself defending the value of engagement with
his material fare more than I've been obliged to defend his actual
arguments.

> you
> are sure to present the most powerful and representative of his arguments.
> This was your opportunity and I trust that you've done that.

I've presented them all -- including the ones he happily suggests do not
amount to accounts of deceit, and those he labels mere "cheap shots" on
Moore's part. Kopel is obviously enjoying his work on this, and appears to
feel little need for making every argument a slam-dunk indictment of Moore.
Someone engaged in good faith, honest argument can afford to let a lot
slide. If you've read the introductory material on his site, you'll observe
that he voted for Nader and has his own briefs with the current
administration.

Kopel can afford to relax.

>> But Moore's not using them for mere humor's sake. Please see Kopel on
> this.
>> Indeed, this particular comment by Bush isn't especially homorous even in
>> Moore's context. It is, however, freighted with significance by Moore.
>
> The comments of the President are obviously made in jest to the degree that
> he was not surprised by ensuing laughter (I believe even his most rabid
> critics would agree). The question is, what's the joke? What Kopel's context
> provides is another perspective on the nature of the joke, he provides a
> missing piece.

"A" missing piece? Any reason for not using the definite article there?

> It turns out that the President was poking fun at himself in
> the great tradition of this event. Moore's audience doesn't know this fact
> and so they are left to wonder why the President would make such
> un-Presidential remarks. But that's ok because under ordinary circumstances
> the comments should be self-explanatory. Had any other President made the
> comment (with the possible exception of Nixon), the audience would have
> concluded at some level that there was some reasonable explanation (a roast,
> etc). Here Moore capitalizes on the President's reputation and image by
> handicapping the audience and forcing them to rely on their assessment of
> the President's character in order to get the joke. Complaints from Bush
> supporters arise because they are too keenly aware that their man will be
> *first* suspected of making a very different kind of joke, one which comes
> at the expense of others, and not himself.

An interesting inference, but not obviously convincing. The problem is that
this explanation depends on cunning insights into What People Really Think,
rather than the simpler explanation of how Moore has robbed the viewer of
sufficient context, as you note.

Perhaps you should be saying that those who are predisposed to view the
president as plausibly speaking seriously will take it seriously. But
you're going further and inferring that even Bush supporters are
embarrassed by some sense in which Bush's reputation will merit
misunderstanding here. But why would that be the case?

> Otherwise, what is there to
> complain about? Moore's artistry led him to realize that by stripping the
> audience of the explanatory crutch, they would be left to assess the
> situation based on their assessment of the President's character. Frankly,
> it was a brilliant touch and obviously quite effective in the unique case of
> this President.

Prescinding from the question of whether your analysis is insightful, at
best I can say that it boils down to "Moore offers a Rorschach test." I
don't find that an impressive accomplishment. In framing your rationale,
you've basically offered that Bush is, himself, a Rorschach test. But this
then reduces further to "people always see what they see," which is a
vacuous truism.

>>> That would be impossible because the links you have provided to Kopel's
> work
>>> do not provide citations to his "sources".
>>
>> Really? Gee, I wonder what all this would be, then?
>
> <snip citations>
>
> Again, I was unable to find these citations as I've said, "in the links
> which you have provided".

Every bloomin' one of the Kopel arguments I've posted includes this about
10 lines down:

Many links provided in locus: http://snurl.com/fiftynine

You said that you "keep reading them looking for successful attacks on the
facts," but that doesn't seem likely if you could miss this in every single
post I've offered, of Kopel's critiques.

Could I possibly have been more clear?

> That Kopel has them on his page is interesting and
> I suggest that if you are going to try and prop him up as a credible source
> you might want to include these as I have done with my links to Moore's
> links to his sources.

I don't think your failure to see an obvious remark and link like the above
is an indictment of any failure on my part to afford readers the
opportunity to trace Kopel's sources. For users whose newsreaders make URLs
clickable, I've brought any of Kopel's sources within two clicks of the
reader -- the first obtaining Kopel's original page.

If you're wondering why I cite Kopel's page instead of explicating his
links for each critique, my reasoning was (as the subject header indicates)
that Kopel's draft is a work in progress, and anyone reading the post
should access his sources through the most current version of the critiques
-- which may, by the time a reader sees the post, be different.

You may disagree with that approach, but it's certainly not unreasonable
and, I think, demonstrates good faith.

>> Furthermore, in the text of his critiques he specifically cites sources.
>
> If that were true I would have been able to link to the data he claims
> exists in the databases of the Census Bureau and the Bureau of Economic
> Statistics on this issue. I cannot. The text of his material which you
> provide contains naked assertions of these "facts" and no links or even
> citations to volumes, pages, etc. I read through the "text of his critique"
> on this point and found no such links or citations, just assertions based on
> these "sources".

You're either lying, incompetent, visually impaired or otherwise disabled,
or making serious mistakes in your browsing. How could you possibly miss
the link? It's http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/03statab/banking.pdf

The link is behind the last two words in the paragraph beginning with
"According the Census Bureau, the top countries which own."

>> This is standard method for Moore. Offer a flood of supporting
> citations --
>> sufficient to persuade weak minds "how could he be wrong" and distracting
>> them by sheer volume from checking whether the sources Moore adduces are
>> sufficient to defend his work from the *actual* critiques. In other words,
>> adducing sources for questions not in dispute is not to the point -- but
>> Moore does it.
>
> To the contrary, I am witness to Moore's citation to sources which actually
> back up his assertions.

That's not "to the contrary" of what I just said. I said "offer a flood of
supporting citations" -- which is precisely what I acknowledge above.
Please parse my paragraph again and understand my actual point.

> And unlike some of his detractors, he provides the
> links, dates, volumes, page references, etc. that actually back up his work.
> Would that his opponents would consistently do the same.

At least two do -- Kopel and spinsanity. I wouldn't have posted their
critiques if this were not so.

>> It's an issue of who you trust, isn't it?
>
> And here you bring us full circle to the point I've made repeatedly and
> where I will now depart the thread (and probably the newsgroup). As PJ
> O'Rourke asks, "When is the last time anyone changed their mind on an issue
> after listening to talk radio"? Our purpose here isn't to persuade others,
> that's a presumptuous and futile exercise in the anonymous jungle of Usenet
> or talk shows. In these purely verbal media, people hear what they want to
> hear and all of these exercises ultimately reduce to competitions in
> debatesmanship and oneupsmanship. High entertainment value, low productivity
> value.
>
> Film, now *that's* a whole different thing. The combined impact of visual
> and musical images (particularly when masterfully assembled) is large and
> enduring. What Moore has done more than anything else, is make clear that
> documentary films are the next communications revolution, more powerful in
> reach and impact than the World Wibe Web or blogs.

Really? The Clinton impeachment debacle started with a blog entry.

> Take a look at the hot
> documentaries emerging on the scene recently ("The Corporation", "Control
> Room", "Supersize Me") and even more importantly, those coming soon (e.g.,
> "Outfoxed", a documentary detailing internal workings and biases of the Fox
> News network, and premiering this weekend) and it's clear that the Left has
> found a powerful new voice that is reaching out to new audiences that will
> never surf the web or read a blog. All those Hollywood celebrities
> associated with liberal causes now have far more to contribute than simply
> an endorsement or a check. Offers are coming in to provide rights to use
> songs, film clips, voice overs, narrations, starring roles, etc. Unless and
> until the Right can counter this with its own equivalent push (and please,
> you can surely do better than Disney's "America's Heart and Soul"), this
> revolutionizing communications channel is going to be owned by the Left. I
> don't like that and I don't think you do, either.

The Leftist hegemony in Hollywood is indeed lamentable, though most of
Hollywood's dreck is not due to their politics but to lack of talent; the
same holds true of the Right in small businesses which fail in droves.
Evolution rewards the few, regardless of their ideology. I anticipate a
flood of documentaries which will cloy audiences until they realize they're
paying for television writ large, at which point saturation and ennui will
rob the medium of its "delta force" -- the ability to disequilibrate and
bring about change.

>> This isn't a conspiratorial view. Nice attempt at rhetoric, though.
>
> At this point the discussion devolves to predictable accusations of
> "rhetoric" (I count at least six such accusations from you). Welcome to
> Usenet. As I said, I'm not here to persuade anyone of anything nor am I
> inclined to present the case against the unfortunate Kopel. These forums
> rarely provide good information, but they do make good entertainment.
>
> I applaud your efforts, you're the most gifted poster I've engaged with for
> some time. Pity you don't put all that energy into something that has the
> potential to actually make a difference.
>
> Good luck, and thanks for the dialog. I'm off to the movies!

I hope to do Spiderman, now that payday is past and the lads in my home
haven't literally eaten the fresh bank balance yet. ;-)

Scott

Chimera

unread,

Jul 16, 2004, 6:30:48 AM7/16/04

This has to be the longest session of Moore apoligist anti-logic I
have seen yet. I believe I am needed to toss a little actul "debate"
in to this thread. So Bob, or any one else whom wishes to deffend
Moore, here are some Topics for direct debate:

"2000 Election Night
Deceits 1-2"
Moore does not lie here, per say, but he leaves out 75% of the
information, cleverly makeing an apple seem to be an orange.

"Pre-9/11 Briefing
Deceits 8-10"
If any one can cite a source that shows, implies, etc. Moore's claim
please do, if not, why is Moore claiming that Bush never read
documents, a claim Moore cannot back up and has no possible way of
knowing?

"Saudi Departures from United States
Deceits 11-15"
Why does Moore try to lead his viewers to believe that the Saudi's
were flown out of the country during the air ban? He does say after
the 13th, but the lead up forces the uninformed viewer to believe they
flew out during the air ban. Why does he not mention that they were
interviewed and cleared by the FBI? All so, could an arguement be made
that by Moore, by mentioning that Saudi nationals flew out of the
country etc, is promoting racial profiling?

"Bush and James Bath
Deceits 16-17"
Funny how Moore left out the legal issues of this claim, can any of
you Moore fans explaim?

"Bush and Prince Bandar
Deceit 18"
Plain and simple manipulation on Moore's part, not a suprise tho.

"Carlyle Group
Deceits 21-23"
This is, a least from what I have percieved among peers, the media,
and boards, is the thesis of Moore's film. The whole point gets torn
to shreds, with in conjunction with points 11-15 totally disprove the
whole Bush/Saudi love affair Moore gets on about.

"Support for Soldiers and Veterans
Deceits 50-52"
Moore gets this all wrong in the film, yet his site contradicts the
film. Moore claims in the film , Bush "proposed cutting combat
soldiers' pay by 33%." When his web site says Bush "proposed cutting
the soldiers' combat bonus pay 33 percent and assistance to their
families by 60 percent." A soldiers anual wages and a $180 bonus are
not comparable. Please explain why Moore lied about this data. The
implications Moore inferes and the reality are not even in the same
universe.

Please some one, for entertainments sake, raise an arguement over
Kopels counter points. Moore's films has been so utterly ripped to
shreds, please attempt to prove Kopel, me, whom ever wrong.

Thanks Aaron

Chimera

unread,

Jul 19, 2004, 4:37:49 AM7/19/04

Well I guess when some one brings up a topic that is non-comb related,
no one is willing to deffend Moore's lies...
Sad

Scott Marquardt

unread,

Jul 19, 2004, 11:29:18 AM7/19/04

Chimera opined thusly on Jul 19:

> Well I guess when some one brings up a topic that is non-comb related,
> no one is willing to deffend Moore's lies...
> Sad

That's pretty much what it looks like. There've been a few good engagements
here. However, the majority of the critiques of Moore's work have gone
unchallenged. Not even Moore's site itself has bothered. Of course, Moore
can't even bring himself to admit error in the inconsequential matter of
the title of a children's story, so why would we expect anything more than
continuing denial concerning the more egregious deceits for which he's
culpable?

Scott

Shannon Jacobs

unread,

Jul 20, 2004, 8:33:42 AM7/20/04

Gosh what AWESOME powers of lying projection. Obviously hasn't been to the
Michael Moore Web site, just like he's never seen any of the movies he's so
eager to quote the "criticisms" of. At one point I thought this wasn't the
stupidest troll on earth, but what else can you say about blather like this:

Scott Marquardt wrote:
<snip>

> That's pretty much what it looks like. There've been a few good
> engagements here. However, the majority of the critiques of Moore's
> work have gone unchallenged. Not even Moore's site itself has
> bothered. Of course, Moore can't even bring himself to admit error
> in the inconsequential matter of the title of a children's story,
> so why would we expect anything more than continuing denial
> concerning the more egregious deceits for which he's culpable?

Elbow Baggins

unread,

Jul 23, 2004, 9:05:20 AM7/23/04

Pagep...@hotmail.com (Chimera) wrote in message news:<fc28a715.0407...@posting.google.com>...

> Well I guess when some one brings up a topic that is non-comb related,
> no one is willing to deffend Moore's lies...
> Sad

You don't say much, but when you do....

Ka Boom!

0 new messages