Post 89 is a perfect example. It makes a specific claim, but no cite. How do I know when the networks called Florida?
There’s an article on CBS sportsline that says the Celtics beat the Rockets last night- how do I know that really happened? :rolleyes:
Well, maybe someone could, I don’t know…provide a link? I mean, that’s how people usualy do a citation here, but I’m not picky. Use APA-style if you want. Go crazy!
Your link proves nothing! How do I know that CBS Sportsline isn’t secretly an ally of the Boston Celitcs and wants people to think they won when they really didn’t?
There are several links that expose Moore’s bs in this thread, some partisan, some not- Again, the doc I quote in the OP was made by Canadians, who are always fair and just.
Other than sending you 8 hours of coverage from each network that night, how could you be satisfied this was the case? Here’s a hint that it may be true- Moore hasn’t sucessfully refuted this point.
Look, do what you want. You’re arguing a position, I’m telling you what would convince me. And anti-Moore websites and filmakers won’t do it, no matter what country they’re from.
Maybe you don’t care about convincing people, you just want to blow off some steam. That’s fine. Whatever floats your boat.
Or maybe I’m the only one on the SDMB who cares about cites and evidence. Anything is possible.
Michael Moore is to the left as Fox News is to the right.
I don’t much like fact-fudging propaganda, regardless of which side generates it.
I find it a bit ironic that you first claim Moore claimed that “Canadians own more guns per capita than Americans,” and then modify that to “comparable” levels between the US and Canada. I recall him saying something more akin to the latter, which I think is still arguably not correct. However, I loved the irony of your misrepresenting Moore’s claim in taking him to task for it.
Like expressing my condemnation (here in the Pit) of an overweight hack filmmaker that disseminates half-truths to the eager masses?
OK.
Selah.
The non sequitur that offends you especially was a response to this from Wee Bairn:
Actually, I don’t think that an edit that might mislead the simple is quite the same as starting a war on lies. (Martin Hyde also thinks most people are fools; at least he knows how to spell!)
This is the pit & non sequiturs are allowed. This is where the enraged can seethe on that Moore is Evil, Evil, Evil. And express their dislike of Western Democracies, as well. (?)
And the rest of us can point & laugh!
No like this “Keep getting fatter, fatass.”
Did some fat kid push you down last week and steal your lunch?
You sound just like an 8 year old.
Actually I thought that post was the highlight of the thread. 
People support him because they disagree with you.
Congratulations, though I don’t recall where in Bowling for Columbine Moore claimed that. He said, as I recall, that we were a “gun-loving” country. in that we have a lot of guns and not a huge amount of resistance to gun ownership. I don’t recall at any time him saying we had more guns per capita than Americans.
In addition to that. . .almost all the topics he has taken on have used the exact same techniques – stringing facts, lies, and innuendos together into an undecipherable mesh – to make their point.
The difference is, Michael Moore didn’t start a war with his movies. He’s not trying to jack you out of health care that is rightfully yours, and he didn’t shoot up a classroom of high school students.
If the people who support the policies that HE BELIEVES have led to those things are going to have their propaganda spread as truth amongst their congressmen, and media outlets, then Fucking Bully for Michael Moore if he wants to do the same thing with his causes.
You can’t dispute propaganda with facts.
I seriously don’t see that much a difference between Moore and that other well known consumer advocate/shyster Kevin Trudeau- both “expose” how govt. and big business collude to screw the common man and things like that, so the common man pays each to learn this info, KT and MM get wealthy and the common man gets a little knowledge and what else?
I’ve observed many here in the Pit go on equally immature diatribes in my short time here. I guess we’ll all jump off a cliff together. And in my first post, if you recall, I even admitted my own immature tactic.
I was basically just effing around.
Even if he is a tad “portly” or “jowlerrific”. It just adds to his mystique, I suppose.
How are you supposed to kill gophers without a gun? Trap them all in snares? That would take forever!
The thing is, if he is stringing facts, lies, and innuendo together, how do we (the moviegoing public) know if his causes are valid? His BELIEF shouldn’t matter a flying fuck to anyone unless he supports his theories with facts, not by stringing together facts, lies, and innuendo. For example, take Columbine. We all know there’s a problem, the school shootings have continued. But what if there is a more effective way to go about solving this problem besides gun control? Does he know for a fact that gun control will stop or greatly lessen school shootings? Has he proved it?
If you found out that someone here on the SDMB was making an argument by stringing together facts, lies, and innuendo, would you be impressed? Would this discovery make you more inclined to accept their position, or less?