The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Official site [URL]http://www.michaelmoorehatesamerica.com/index.html[/URL]
Page:
Belldandy wrote:
>
> I'm on limited time here, so I'll be brief and if other have made
> other points that await replies you'll have to wait, as today is a
> day I actually have stuff to do.
Ooh, hark at her...busy doing important things, eh Belly Bunter?
>
> I'd argue that V for Vendetta was solely about both - V is the
> central protaganist who initiates the evenutal revolt against the
> government, and he is indeed on a vendetta as a result of his
> treatment at one of the camps. Though I'll admit that ten people
> could read the book and probably come up with ten different ideas
> about what it is about.
And Evie? Her story is pretty important, don't you think?
The point I'm making is that to attack Bowling for Columbine because it was entirely about bowling or Columbine is perhaps the weakest and most pathetic thing you've ever written (and there are a lot of candidates...). When you apply the same logic to everything else, one can see just how stupid you look. I mean, 100 Bullets; is that just about 100 bullets? Max; you wanna criticise that film for not just being about a bloke called Max?
>
> The point is that the title of this documentary does not have to
> elude to the content except in a slight way - if the maker shows
> Moore has lied in his work in order to change how he depicts America
> then that would seem proof that Moore has some emotional reason to do
> so.
Eh? That is an extremely convoluted statement that doesn't actually have a central premise. Tell me, you've admitted that you lie all the time on this board about everything; does that mean you have emotional reasons for doing so? I mean, obviously you do; you want everyone to think you're knowledgable and show respect for you. Also, lets say this film proves that Moore lies. Bearing in mind that you've repeatedly stated how much you lie, and that you don't care if Dubya et al lie as long as it backs up your opinion, then why should what you say here matter any more than a puff of warm hydrogen?
And of course, that's without even beginning on what a tool you are for trying to debunk someone who's work you've never ever seen or read...
>
> I'm on limited time here, so I'll be brief and if other have made
> other points that await replies you'll have to wait, as today is a
> day I actually have stuff to do.
Ooh, hark at her...busy doing important things, eh Belly Bunter?
>
> I'd argue that V for Vendetta was solely about both - V is the
> central protaganist who initiates the evenutal revolt against the
> government, and he is indeed on a vendetta as a result of his
> treatment at one of the camps. Though I'll admit that ten people
> could read the book and probably come up with ten different ideas
> about what it is about.
And Evie? Her story is pretty important, don't you think?
The point I'm making is that to attack Bowling for Columbine because it was entirely about bowling or Columbine is perhaps the weakest and most pathetic thing you've ever written (and there are a lot of candidates...). When you apply the same logic to everything else, one can see just how stupid you look. I mean, 100 Bullets; is that just about 100 bullets? Max; you wanna criticise that film for not just being about a bloke called Max?
>
> The point is that the title of this documentary does not have to
> elude to the content except in a slight way - if the maker shows
> Moore has lied in his work in order to change how he depicts America
> then that would seem proof that Moore has some emotional reason to do
> so.
Eh? That is an extremely convoluted statement that doesn't actually have a central premise. Tell me, you've admitted that you lie all the time on this board about everything; does that mean you have emotional reasons for doing so? I mean, obviously you do; you want everyone to think you're knowledgable and show respect for you. Also, lets say this film proves that Moore lies. Bearing in mind that you've repeatedly stated how much you lie, and that you don't care if Dubya et al lie as long as it backs up your opinion, then why should what you say here matter any more than a puff of warm hydrogen?
And of course, that's without even beginning on what a tool you are for trying to debunk someone who's work you've never ever seen or read...
Oh man, we've already established Bell's credentials with Michael Moore's material.
He's never read anything, nor seen any of his documentaries.
He admitted it eventually, but only after a week spent trying to say I knew nothing about Tom Clancy - after my very first post saying I knew nothing about Tom Clancy.
He uses websites to bolster arguments he's not sure about, to put across views he doesn't understand to decry a documentary he's never seen.
Y'all should treat this thread with the respect it/he deserves
He's never read anything, nor seen any of his documentaries.
He admitted it eventually, but only after a week spent trying to say I knew nothing about Tom Clancy - after my very first post saying I knew nothing about Tom Clancy.
He uses websites to bolster arguments he's not sure about, to put across views he doesn't understand to decry a documentary he's never seen.
Y'all should treat this thread with the respect it/he deserves
Belldandy wrote:
> The point is that the title of this documentary does not have to
> elude to the content except in a slight way - if the maker shows
> Moore has lied in his work in order to change how he depicts America
> then that would seem proof that Moore has some emotional reason to do
> so.
I personally always thought it was because it would have made as much sense to blame bowling for their actions, as it would have to blame Marylin Manson, Doom etc etc etc.
> The point is that the title of this documentary does not have to
> elude to the content except in a slight way - if the maker shows
> Moore has lied in his work in order to change how he depicts America
> then that would seem proof that Moore has some emotional reason to do
> so.
I personally always thought it was because it would have made as much sense to blame bowling for their actions, as it would have to blame Marylin Manson, Doom etc etc etc.
Light wrote:
> Since you're really scraping the barrel for things to distract from
> what an idiot you've made of yourself, I have to ask; was "V for
> Vendetta" solely about V, or a vendetta? Why no, it wasn't. A
> pathetic sort of point to make, but worthwhile if only to demonstrate
> how pathetic you are for making it in the first place.
I'm on limited time here, so I'll be brief and if other have made other points that await replies you'll have to wait, as today is a day I actually have stuff to do.
I'd argue that V for Vendetta was solely about both - V is the central protaganist who initiates the evenutal revolt against the government, and he is indeed on a vendetta as a result of his treatment at one of the camps. Though I'll admit that ten people could read the book and probably come up with ten different ideas about what it is about.
The point is that the title of this documentary does not have to elude to the content except in a slight way - if the maker shows Moore has lied in his work in order to change how he depicts America then that would seem proof that Moore has some emotional reason to do so.
> Since you're really scraping the barrel for things to distract from
> what an idiot you've made of yourself, I have to ask; was "V for
> Vendetta" solely about V, or a vendetta? Why no, it wasn't. A
> pathetic sort of point to make, but worthwhile if only to demonstrate
> how pathetic you are for making it in the first place.
I'm on limited time here, so I'll be brief and if other have made other points that await replies you'll have to wait, as today is a day I actually have stuff to do.
I'd argue that V for Vendetta was solely about both - V is the central protaganist who initiates the evenutal revolt against the government, and he is indeed on a vendetta as a result of his treatment at one of the camps. Though I'll admit that ten people could read the book and probably come up with ten different ideas about what it is about.
The point is that the title of this documentary does not have to elude to the content except in a slight way - if the maker shows Moore has lied in his work in order to change how he depicts America then that would seem proof that Moore has some emotional reason to do so.
Mr Snuggly wrote:
> If someone made a film called 'Belldandy is a gutless coward', would
> you agree to be interviewed? Although in this case, it would be
> true.
Actually, the proposal for that one is in front of the Arts Council now...
> If someone made a film called 'Belldandy is a gutless coward', would
> you agree to be interviewed? Although in this case, it would be
> true.
Actually, the proposal for that one is in front of the Arts Council now...
Belldandy wrote:
> Well was "Bowling for Columbine" solely about Columbine or
> about bowling?
>
> I doubt it...
Since you're really scraping the barrel for things to distract from what an idiot you've made of yourself, I have to ask; was "V for Vendetta" solely about V, or a vendetta? Why no, it wasn't. A pathetic sort of point to make, but worthwhile if only to demonstrate how pathetic you are for making it in the first place.
Here is a little factoid for you; the title refers to the fact that Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris went bowling on the morning they perpetrated the Columbine massacre. Bowling....Columbine. Do you see? Had you watched the film you'd know that. If you had a passing knowledge of the massacre, you would have known that. You have neither, and so this becomes another exercise in "Bell makes himself look a tool then blames everyone else for his own breathtaking ignorance"
> Well was "Bowling for Columbine" solely about Columbine or
> about bowling?
>
> I doubt it...
Since you're really scraping the barrel for things to distract from what an idiot you've made of yourself, I have to ask; was "V for Vendetta" solely about V, or a vendetta? Why no, it wasn't. A pathetic sort of point to make, but worthwhile if only to demonstrate how pathetic you are for making it in the first place.
Here is a little factoid for you; the title refers to the fact that Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris went bowling on the morning they perpetrated the Columbine massacre. Bowling....Columbine. Do you see? Had you watched the film you'd know that. If you had a passing knowledge of the massacre, you would have known that. You have neither, and so this becomes another exercise in "Bell makes himself look a tool then blames everyone else for his own breathtaking ignorance"
Belldandy wrote:
> Well was "Bowling for Columbine" solely about Columbine or
> about bowling?
>
> I doubt it...
So the REAL ppint here is YOU HAVEN'T SEEN IT.
So any reference this film makes to Moore's film could be used completely out of context and you wouldn't actually know.
But then that suits how you do things doesn't it Mr Dandy? You only look at the things the re-inforce how you think things are, and not how they ACTUALLY are.
> Well was "Bowling for Columbine" solely about Columbine or
> about bowling?
>
> I doubt it...
So the REAL ppint here is YOU HAVEN'T SEEN IT.
So any reference this film makes to Moore's film could be used completely out of context and you wouldn't actually know.
But then that suits how you do things doesn't it Mr Dandy? You only look at the things the re-inforce how you think things are, and not how they ACTUALLY are.
He's always clearly stated that he loves America, he just hates how the rich are starting to trample the poor in the name of profits.
Sure, it was always obvious that he was bias and you couldn't take what you read without a pinch of salt, but this is just the "right wing" copycat attempt, trying to bring him down.
I mean, Mike was bias, but he still revealed a heck of a lot that's wrong with the way America is being run, and the people he exposed want to get their own back by digging dirt on him.
Sure, it was always obvious that he was bias and you couldn't take what you read without a pinch of salt, but this is just the "right wing" copycat attempt, trying to bring him down.
I mean, Mike was bias, but he still revealed a heck of a lot that's wrong with the way America is being run, and the people he exposed want to get their own back by digging dirt on him.
If someone made a film called 'Belldandy is a gutless coward', would you agree to be interviewed? Although in this case, it would be true.
There's a difference
Page: