Indeed my mileage does vary. He didn’t make it up, he used the wrong typeface and page number.
I do agree that he should have been more careful (this thread title shows why).
Yes I read the thread. And discerned that Bush supporters were desperate to distract attention from the real issues.
I think that showing the truth about politicians is hard to do. (You should see how Tony Blair covers up Iraq here in the UK. Also our School Inspection Board recently announced it was doing a fantastic job. According to a report written by … our School Inspection Board. But I digress.)
I think Moore has done a fine job for democracy. I don’t see why one misleading frame affects his amazing research findings.
So you agree that nothing in this thread invalidates the film and its message?
Cite? Please show me where I’ve defined words to mean what I want in this thread.
In addition to knowing how to use a dictionary, I also know how to use a thesaurus. Let’s see what “Roget’s New Millenium Thesaurus” has on the word “lie”. I’ve bolded a couple of words.
Being intentionally misleading is, in fact, synonymous with lieing.
No. But being deliberately innacurate is lying. Making up an image of a newspaper requires deliberate action, so I think it’s fair to characterize that has a lie.
And yet Moore’s doc reaped more money than all of this year’s Disney’s movies combined:
Go on and contiune on with the “Moore lies” brass. It will continue to help you further your advancement into the total failure club. Of course those who brandish Moore are failing miserably.
The more they brandish him, the more people will believe Moore and the more will go to watch his film.
I’ve stated, several times, in this very thread, that I think this detracts from Moore’s credibility, and not the validity of his films message. I’m actually pretty far out on the left, even for this board. I just don’t like people who lie (or mislead, beguile, bull, con, delude, distort, dupe, fabricate, fake, falsify, fib, fudge, misguide, misinform, misrepresent, pater, perjure, etc.) of any political persuasion.
I was referring to Ring of Fire’s logic chain proving that ‘misleading’ = ‘lie’. You are welcome to comment on that.
I agree that deliberately representing opinion as fact is dishonest.
Presumably there were enough examples in the way Bush and Blair presented the case for war to call them both liars then?
Shoot, it’s a milroyj thread. By definition, the thread is moronic. Anyone who joins in (myself included) is tainted by the vile bilge water in the well. No other outcome is possible. We’re all slow learners, it would seem.
Bush and Blair are not the topic of this thread. MM is dishonest, by your own admission. Somehow your response to that is BUSH LIED! Typical response, but not on point.
It’s always amusing to watch Moore’s Harem twist and turn like pretzels in a desperate, frantic attempt to keep their King from being labeled with the big L-word.
As if the entertainment value of his products - the only value they have, of course - would be diminished. Do you really need him to be a squeaky-clean pure-as-fallen-snow Saint in order to enjoy wanking to his material?
Moore blew it on this one, and there was no reason to do so.
My understanding is that he wanted to show that there were problems with the election in Florida, and that it’s still up in the air as to who should have won the state. If that was his point, I think he’s correct. There are lots of ways of getting the same point across without faking a front-page headline, even if the text did technically appear in the paper. While I consider it an innocuous error in judgment, it was one nonetheless.
For those who wish to say that this calls into question his entire movie, it doesn’t. If you wish to show errors in his movie, show them. If we discounted every single statement made by a source based on the fact that they were misleading at some point, where would you get your information?
Sinful, while milroyj is hardly the person to be requiring cites, I think he’s correct on this one, unless you made a mistake in your original post. You stated that this movie made more than all of the Disney movies combined for the year, when Moore says it made more than any single Disney movie this year.
First of all, your statement was that F911 made more money than all of Disney’s movies combined. Yet your cite says it made more money than any of Disney’s movies, which may, or may not, be true, but it’s not the same thing.
Yes, I know F911 grossed $100 million, now, do you have a cite showing that the combined Disney movies grossed less than that? I find it unprobable, at best.
Not having seen the movie, Moore’s response to this charge, the original Pantagraph page, or the relevant stills from the movie, I can’t judge this. I suspect that nobody else here has all the facts, either; this is classic premature judgment.
College town? Blue state? Why, then, those drones MUST love Moore! There are no conservatives, much less dishonest conservatives, in blue-state college towns.
I suspect nothing of the sort, but nor do I especially doubt it. I don’t have enough information to make a judgment. And nor do you. The difference is, your mind is already made up–or did you have no opinion on Moore before reading this?
I don’t see how this is a judgement call, really. The newspaper says that MM misquoted them by portraying an opinion piece as a news headline. I have no reason to doubt the Pantagraph, do you?
