More on Moore

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Fri May 14, 2004 11:09 am

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/wackoattacko/

I'd be interested in seeing the responses to some of those who find the film to be non-factual and wrong. Not saying I agree with everything he is saying about his film, but it would be interesting to see the other side.

I mean, on bash's comments about his town being misrepresented, I think it's pretty hard to accurately portray a town. I grew up in a small town called Orinda. You could interview 50 people in the hills and think everyone was living in a mansion and stuck up. Then you could interview people in my neighborhood, and the feeling is more of a regular middle class or upper middle class neighborhood. Or you could interview the people that make a 20 minute drive from el sobrante to work at safeway...or the guy that synthesized 10,000 hits of lsd and got caught in my town and totally spin Orinda that way. I think being true to the city is pretty much impossible without interviewing every person in the town.

So to what extent must the footage be 'accurate' as far as who is covered?

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Fri May 14, 2004 11:53 am

He still claims the bank/gun incident is not staged yet I saw one of the bank employees interviewed on film stating that the film crew arranged for the gun to be handed over at the bank which was not the ordinary procedure. She said she felt she was mislead by the film crew when she saw the film because of the way they portrayed the event. The film crew explained that it was to avoid having to set up and film the event in two places so to accomodate Moore they agreed to have the gun on location to hand it to him in the bank. Just because they have a firearms license doesn't mean they usually hand the gun over in the bank, although if you pass the background check it really doesn't matter...

Also, although he claims on this web page, where he doesn't face any challenge to his assertions, that it was all true yet I saw Moore himself squirming in the chair when confronted with a list of these claims and his way out was to say "It's entertainment, not documentary"

So when was Moore lying? Now on the website, or on national TV in the interview where he copped out claiming 'entertainment no documentary'...
And for a film that he won documentary of the year. An award about as credible as Jethro Tull winning best metal album over Mettalica at the grammys.

Tyranny · Post by **Tyranny** » Sat May 15, 2004 12:19 am

I agree with Will on this. Furthermore he has always been just as two-faced as those who he accuses of lying. He constantly tries to sensationalize things for his own personal exposure. He likes being in the limelight. Whether what he says is true or not makes little difference since he too tries to profit from tragedy just like those who he criticizes.

Seriously, any man who feels what he does is just entertainment when his 'entertainment' is the exploitation of the exploited should be considered the lowest of the low. He'd make a really good lawyer.

He acts like he's just the common guy trying to expose people to the truth. A truth most people with some common sense should already realize. Then acts like he doesn't earn a penny to his name and all of this is just for the good of the people and not his bank account.

Hey Moore, I'm not with the NRA, and I'm not a gun owner and I still don't like you, so nya

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Fri May 21, 2004 8:50 pm

http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

So far the most interesting anti-moore site i've visited.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Fri May 21, 2004 9:11 pm

But he's anti-Bush so anything he does is ok.