DescentBB

Sickone wrote: Frankly I would love to see Moore's work IF he did a movie about himself using the same approach - I would roll out of my seat.

Well, there is a new movie about Michael Moore just coming out. It (obviously) wasn't made by Michael Moore but it's style is based on Roger And Me. The trailers are great - nothing more damning than Moore in his own words.

Can anyone name one documentary that doesn't have the director's slant in it?

I can't Ferno.

Otherone,

Yes well that's the trouble with being from a regular person, you have to do your own thinking and talking. Nobody hiding behind the curtain telling you what to say through the little microphone behind your ear. Nobody sitting down with you explaining the daily opinion polls and how to spin your message. Just have to go out there and give it your best shot on your own.

It sure sucks to be Moore (and me and you). I wish I could be a rich brat like Bush and pretend to be all tough and grownup in the whitehouse. That would be so damn cool!*

Ferno wrote:Can anyone name one documentary that doesn't have the director's slant in it?

Can anyone name me a documentary director who when challenged on the content of his "documentary" being full of lies and distortions reluctantly conceded that his film was merely entertainment and not a documentary at all.
And if you can find one, was it created and designed solely for use to sway the outcome of a presidential election. And if so is it one that was largely supported by the mainstream media as a documentary and nominated for best documentary in spite of the director/creators own admission that is wasn't really a documentary?

Can you find me all that?
If so I'll accept your premise that this was just one more in the status quo for this genre of filmmaking.
If not then I guess you have to re-think your dismissal of our critisism and disgust for Moore.

Will,

Name me a documentary that has been as widely watched and effective. You can't, can you?

Documentaries are widely ignored by the American audience, and let's face it this one has been by and large ignored too. You haven't watched it have you? You read about it.

Moore's film is a documentary that entertains. Top Gun is an entertainment that politicizes. Is one more "honest" or more "worthy" than the other?

sheepdog wrote:

It sure sucks to be Moore (and me and you). I wish I could be a rich brat like Bush and pretend to be all tough and grownup in the whitehouse. That would be so damn cool!*

So you think Moore is poor like you and I? I dare say that Moore has his own phalanx of writers and coaches.
At 30-40,000.00 a pop for college speeches I have no pity for Moores finacial status.
Bush OTOH, has made enough gaffs while answering questions that I feel like I'm hearing more of who Bush the person is than I ever will with Moore.

sheepdog wrote:Will,

Name me a documentary that has been as widely watched and effective. You can't, can you?

Documentaries are widely ignored by the American audience, and let's face it this one has been by and large ignored too....

WTF are you saying? Either it has been "widely watched"..or..it has been "widely ignored"!!!
I think I know which it is but either way you haven't really done anything to address my point.

You know all of the content on the History channel, Discovery Health, Discovery Science and the Discovery channel as well as the many other channels with similar content are documentaries. TRUE documentaries. Apparently they had enough of a viewing audience to warrant having their own channels dedicated to to that type of genre.

Last I checked you didn't have to pay $8 to watch those. They're offered on television. The only documentaries you have to pay to see are some of the ones they show at IMAX theaters.

To say that they aren't widely watched is a false statement. They aren't widely offered as a feature film. They are watched however.

Which Ty, brings us to the question...will F.9/11 ever be brought to the small screen?

Will Robinson wrote:[
WTF are you saying? Either it has been "widely watched"..or..it has been "widely ignored"!!!
I think I know which it is but either way you haven't really done anything to address my point.

Addressing your point: Moore is right. His film clearly isn't a strict documentary that states facts baldly with accompanying pictures. It definitly pushes into Hunter Thompsonish new journalism where the narrator's fallability is a given and meanings are much more open to interpretation. I think the left's preference for this sort of journalism is as marked as the right's disdain for it. But that's just my uneducated opinion.

My bad, rushed writing, Will. Sorry. Widely watched as a documentary. Much more popular than most documentaries, but when compared to the audience of a film like Top Gun... no one has seen it. Is that acceptably clear?

Farenheit 9/11 had some slight impact upon young people, so Americans conservatives feel free to go after Moore with both barrels (figuratively so far). I would think you would be thanking him for maintaining some vestige of democratic dissent in the popular media.

Maybe Moore gets to you guys because you are just as worried as I am that we have been duped into yet another war that primarily serves the interests of the military-industrial complex. So long as our suspicions are only reported on NPR and there mainly on the BBC News Hour, we really don't have to confront the reality of it. When its in the Cineplex down the street that's a different matter.

My problem is with the mainstream media propping him up...letting the democrat candidates and party leadership quote him with out questioning their 'source'... They were allowed to repeatedly present Moores lies as facts and weren't challenged on it. Was the press just lazy? I guess they wore out their integrity attacking the swift-boat-vets-for-revenge and just couldn't put up the fight against Moore.

That, and the film industry awarding him Best Documentary. Will real documentary film makers now have to resort to his dishonest tactics to get their films noticed at that level? Is it right for Moores defenders, like we see in this thread, to lower the bar for acceptable content in a documentary just to justify his product? The ends justify the means as long as it helps the guy with a D attached to the end of their name!?!?

Moore is doing what Rush Limbaugh does. If Rush made a film full of his slant and distortions would the press and pop-culture say it's the status quo for documentary film making.
Would you give Rush the pass you just gave Moore?

I get a laugh at the denial people indulge in to rationalize Moore's 'documentary'.

You make good points Will. I wasn't aware that Moore carried much weight anywhere but on college campuses.

Have you read House of Bush, House of Saud or some of the other books that are clearly the source for Moore's film? Did you read the Bob Woodward book? What's it's title, Bush's War maybe? I have that one but I haven't read it yet. You're probably too busy working to read much. My husband is, and when he reads something serious he falls asleep cuz he's so tired.

Woodchip, I don't think that Moore has to stay poor for the duration in order to be seen as a regular guy, do you? I married a guy who makes a fair bit of money now, but we we're both from fairly humble beginnings. Does that disqualify me from considering myself worlds apart from the Bush family?

Ah thank you Sheepdog for the Hunter S. Thompson comparison.
A great deal of what I know of the American electoral system came from my reading of "Fear and Loathing on the Campain Trail 1972" which is a compliation of Mr. Thompson's articles published in Rolling Stone magazine during the 1972 election (Nixon vs McGovern).
Unbiased? Well thought out? Who are you kidding! It is one of the fine examples of Gonzo Journalism that Mr. Thompson pioneered. But in it he walked through the primary system and the differences between the various states' method of selecting delegates to the conventions, the relative importance of the various state primaries, the politics and back room dealing of the conventions, the campaign proccess and strategies and the electoral college system. Oh, and a discussion of the relative merits of various models of motorcycles availible that year.
You can learn a lot if you look at the source as well as the data and draw from it the information you need.

As a side light; Mr. Thompson offered the most succinct summation of Hubert H. Humphry I have read. It sticks with me now many years later, Rolling Stone put it under an unflattering photo of HHH, whom Mr. Thompson refered to as "a gutless, contemptable, poltical hack". He has a way with words don't you think?

"Can anyone name me a documentary director who when challenged on the content of his "documentary" being full of lies and distortions reluctantly conceded that his film was merely entertainment and not a documentary at all."

classic dodging. I can't take you seriously anymore Will. To me you have no real credibility left.

Yea I know you're gonna start to rant and rave, portray me as a moore-lover, anti-american, or something like that. and then try to discredit me. i've seen it before and it has no relavance.

Just admit that there are no documentaries that have no slant and be done with it.


Now let me get this stright Tyr. If a documentary is not political, it's true. if it IS political, it's one sided.

woodchip wrote:Which Ty, brings us to the question...will F.9/11 ever be brought to the small screen?

It'll be on the movie channels in a few months I'm sure. They're playing Bowling for Columbine again for some strange reason. Course, they usually recycle the same content every so often.

Ferno wrote:Now let me get this stright Tyr. If a documentary is not political, it's true. if it IS political, it's one sided.

What post were you reading? I certainly didn't mean to imply that, nor did what I post come anywhere close to saying anything like that. All I said addressed the statement that "Documentaries are widely ignored by the American audience". I didn't agree with that and I listed my reasons why.

This is what I was talking about in that other thread Ferny. It's like you post stuff out of thin air to just start more arguements regardless of if you really care about the subject or not. The reason I bring this up is because you told me once that you didn't really care about most of this and you're just having some fun the majority of the time.

So everytime I read your posts I'm inclined to believe you're sitting back having a good laugh at how angry someone gets or how much people will go on and on in response to your short little one liners.

Much like I have here. Go me.

Ferno wrote:...classic dodging. I can't take you seriously anymore Will...

..Just admit that there are no documentaries that have no slant and be done with it.....

I should have put in print what I thought was an obvious acceptance of your point.
So here:
I admit every creator/director puts his slant in the sense they accent what they think are the important parts. Yes.
Do I believe, as you have tried to frame it, that Moore merely did the same...NO WAY!

That is why I tried to point out the difference between his slant and the usual slant that is inevitable.

Example:
A director who points to the effect of greenhouse gasses on the ozone without mentioning the fact that volcano's have a much more significant effect is one thing. He believes he is telling people about an important threat and he tells the truth about the gasses. His slant is he excluded other possibilities but he didn't lie and create the notion of greenhouse gasses!

Moore had to edit out of context in order for most of his content to even seem to indict Bush. He had to create the details out of whole cloth in order to have a threat to report!

Do you think he believes that the bin Laddens were allowed to fly out of the country before americans took to the sky's again...did he forget to mention all air traffic resumed before they were allowed to leave and that the FBI interviewed them before they were allowed to leave? Many more examples are there for you to examine, if you are willing to.

For you to believe he is sincerely trying to tell the truth you would also have to conclude he is an idiot not worthy of making a public statement let alone a documentary simply because he got so much, so wrong, and one would have to wonder how he could have got it so wrong if it was an innocent mistake...only an idiot could have screwed up so badly!
Moore is not an idiot however, he knows he's not telling the truth but believes his propoganda is working for a just cause so he goes ahead and puts it out.
Many in the mainstream media and throughout Hollywood were on board the anyone-but-Bush train with him and they propped up Moore where otherwise they would have torn him apart for such a dishonest piece of work.

"You know all of the content on the History channel, Discovery Health, Discovery Science and the Discovery channel as well as the many other channels with similar content are documentaries. TRUE documentaries."

ahem.

"It's like you post stuff out of thin air to just start more arguements regardless of if you really care about the subject or not."

this is an outright lie. I post my opinions and observations. if you get mad at them, maybe you should have a look at why that is.

Well, I'm sorry, but you're insinuating something that just simply isn't there. It isn't my fault if you read more into what was written trying to reach for something to argue about.

It hasn't gotten me angry yet. Plus you're a friend, one that I haven't quite figured out it seems. I pegged you as being more like me before I ever started reading the DBB habitually. Apparently I pegged you wrong but we can agree to disagree in that regard.

Ferno has a touch of Grunter-itis.

http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame44.html

lol @ sirian.

"Well, I'm sorry, but you're insinuating something that just simply isn't there. It isn't my fault if you read more into what was written trying to reach for something to argue about."

When is pointing out a difference in two parallels insinuating something?

"Plus you're a friend, one that I haven't quite figured out it seems."

You don't need to spend the energy trying to figure me out when I've shown you what you need to know.

Ferno wrote:
"Plus you're a friend, one that I haven't quite figured out it seems."

You don't need to spend the energy trying to figure me out when I've shown you what you need to know.

Don't take offense Ty, Ferny hasn't figured himself out yet.

What I think Ferno has been saying, but what doesn't seem to be registering is that he's not going to assume that Moore is wrong or worse lying or that he has broken a law or worse behaved treasonously. That's absolutely legitimate on his part. Like the rest of you, he hasn't seen the film. Like me, he hasn't seen any good evidence (and that very much includes Iceman's 59 points)against Moore that's any more reliable than Moore's own.

He hasn't said that he Moore's film is free of bias. He simply says that documentary film makers are all to one extent or another biased. His basis for this claim? The general philisophical attitude in western society that truth is relative and that all of those who report it are doing so through their own screen of bias (unlike societies in the middle east where truth is seen to be recieved by unimpeachable clerics who then pass it on intact to mere humans).

As for Will's and Tyranny's example of that holiest of holies,The Science Documentary. Most really good mainstream science reporting is very much like Moore's filmmaking, it lays it biases(theoretical underpinnings) out for the world to see and encourages the viewer to decide if given that bias the film's findings still ring true. Bad science reporting, which is rife on televesion science channels pretends that there are some indisputable truths in the world, that somethings are true independent of human bias.

If any of you had seen Moore's film, you would know that Moore's film is radically honest in this way if in no other. It wears its leftist anti-Bush bias on its sleeve, and lets the viewer take it or leave it on that basis.

Tyrrany you should try arguing an unpopular point of view on an important issue sometime. The hardest part is that important issues often impinge on our self definitions and so the argument can quickly and easily deteriorate into questions regarding personal integrity. When I take the "road less travelled" on an issue, I enjoy discussions with folks who are reliable in this regard, whom I trust to try hard to see my point of view. By "see," I certainly don't mean "agree." I mean that I value folks who might have profound disagreements with me on the issue but who will not resort to the zillions of rhetorical dirty tricks that serve to hamstring my argument and make me look foolish or stupid or rude or shortsighted or unpatriotic or whatever. I think it's particularly important for those who are representing "the popular view" to take pains to not personalize the arguments of the opposing side.*

*and I know this because I have been on both ends of this sort of flame war all too frequently. Obviously I have some evil tendencies in this regard.**

**and perhaps the worst outcome of using rhetorical tactics on a guy like Ferno is that you make a quiet guy with considered interesting opinions even more quiet and even more reluctant to share his opinions. Thereby we all lose

sheepdog wrote: **and perhaps the worst outcome of using rhetorical tactics on a guy like Ferno is that you make a quiet guy with considered interesting opinions even more quiet and even more reluctant to share his opinions. Thereby we all lose

Don't worry about Ferny being reluctant to share his opinions. Just go back to some of the Rican/Ferno matches and you'll understand why. If I for one thought Ferny was a wilting wall flower that had to be handled like a piece of fine china I wouldn't razz him on at times. Ferno quiet? More like a leopard waiting to pounce on the unwary.

Aw! I didn' say he was a wilting flower! Sheesh! See now Woodchip, you just used a rhetorical tactic. Watchout or I'll get my Copi's Logic textbook and look up exactly which fallacy you just employed.

I just think Ferno's quiet most of the time. Anyway, the patent pending "flamewar with Rican" is waaaaaaay different than what's happening here.

sheepdog wrote:As for Will's and Tyranny's example of that holiest of holies,The Science Documentary. Most really good mainstream science reporting is very much like Moore's filmmaking, it lays it biases(theoretical underpinnings) out for the world to see and encourages the viewer to decide if given that bias the film's findings still ring true.

Your defense of his film sounds a lot like a child saying 'well the other kids do it too...'
Only in this case I don't even accept the premise of your claim, I don't think other film makers get away with such complete distortions of fact.

Please take my example of the films assertion that the bin Ladden family was allowed to fly out while everyone else was grounded and explain how that qualifies as 'good reporting'.
What conclusion do you think Moore intended the viewer to come to by viewing his version of the bin Ladden's flight out of the country?
Do you think he didn't know he was painting a very false picture of what really happened? How is that 'good reporting'?
Do you mean to claim all 'good reporting' consists of such misleading, blatent distortions of the facts?!?

I'll be glad to give you another example...and another...and another...I could probably back up every point on Icemans list.

But let's just take it one example at a time to avoid any dodging of the question. Don't generalize or obfuscate just use the example and either justify it or accept that he lied. Then we'll move on to the next one....

O.k. back to subject at hand:

"He simply says that documentary film makers are all to one extent or another biased." Sheepdog

A true documentry without bias would be say...the history channels "Modern Marvels". A subject such as the Abraham's tank is done showing background and predecessors that lead to the design of the Abrahams.
Then the documentry will go on to show the development stage and finally how it was used. Nowhere in the presentation is it shown that the use there-in is either a good thing or a bad thing. No political pontification to show a bias is presented. Thus a true straight forward documentry.
Now the question is...how would the Bloated Goat handle the same object. Would he have done the same as Modern Marvels or would he show the tank as a tool of the oppressive Bush administration with scenes of the tank firing and then cut-a-ways to dead Iraqi citizens? (no matter that the dead Iraqis may very well have been killed by their own people).
So for Ferno to make his blanket statement is somewhat facile, as a true documentry has no need for bias to be effectively done. Mainstream news as presented by such illuminaries as Dan Rather forget that bias has no place in their business. The result being that now journalists have a trust factor little above that of a used car salesman.

Will,

He didn't lie. He believed that the Bin Ladens left the country before air travel was resumed and he reported it. Later he learned that he was wrong.

An analogous situation would be mobilizing the most powerful fighting force in the world and deploying it in the mideast on the basis of mistaken information regarding nuclear arms and bio-terror weapons only to find no sign of said arms and weapons. OOPS!

sheepdog wrote:Will,

He didn't lie. He believed that the Bin Ladens left the country before air travel was resumed and he reported it.

the ooops is all yours:
**********************

from here:
Moore suggests that members of Osama Bin Laden's family and other Saudis were able to fly out of the country while air traffic was grounded after September 11. After an initial report in Newsweek inaccurately characterized the scene, saying it had made a direct claim to that effect, Moore's staff replied with a legalistic parsing. The film does accurately date the Saudi flights out of the country to "after September 13" as they claim (flights leaving the country resumed on the 14th), but Moore does not take the important step of explaining the meaning of this date in the film:

Moore: In the days following September 11, all commercial and private airline traffic was grounded... [video clips] Not even Ricky Martin could fly. But really, who wanted to fly? No one, except the Bin Ladens.

Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND): We had some airplanes authorized at the highest levels of our government to fly to pick up Osama Bin Laden's family members and others from Saudi Arabia and transport them out of this country.

Moore: It turns out that the White House approved planes to pick up the Bin Ladens and numerous other Saudis. At least six private jets and nearly two dozen commercial planes carried the Saudis and the Bin Ladens out of the US after September 13th. In all, 142 Saudis, including 24 members of the bin Laden family, were allowed to leave the country.

Given that Moore states that "In the days following September 11, all commercial and private airline traffic was grounded," how are viewers to know that this description did not include the Saudi flights out of the country? The "after September 13th" clause may show that Moore's claim was technically accurate, but it leaves viewers with the distinct impression that the Bin Ladens left the country before others were allowed to.
************************
You call that 'good reporting'?
Wanna play some more?

Sure, I'll play!

What's the game? Is it, you ask if Moore lied, I answer that he didn't lie and then you post that yes he technically didn't lie and then you claim to win?

Just want to be sure I understand the rules, Will.

Woodchip,

Moore isn't a shining example of journalistic integrity. I'll give you that. I don't suppose that you could concede that it seems that his film raises important questions and leave it at that, before we go any further into "Bloated Goat" rhetoric.

PS. Out of here to work Nell in a great big field. An opportunity to work on keeping her on the pressure when she drives. Cya guys in the PM.

No, remember I said no obfuscation. The game is you try to defend Moore's dishonest work as normal "good reporting" as you called it.
If you want to defend the distortions he shamelessly put out as a normal 'documentary' by lowering the standards for documentary films in general then go ahead. I just want people to see how low one has to go to prop up Michael Moore.

Do you feel you have sufficiently defended his portrayal of the bin Ladden family flights as the only people allowed to fly: "In the days following September 11, all commercial and private airline traffic was grounded... [video clips] Not even Ricky Martin could fly. But really, who wanted to fly? No one, except the Bin Ladens."

Yes we know he mentioned that they flew after sept.13 but we also know he didn't bother to mention that *everyone* was allowed to fly on that date and that the bin Ladden family *didn't* fly until that time when *everyone* was allowed to fly!

Do you still feel comfortable saying his version of the events is the product of "good reporting" and that is a reasonable example for presentation of facts in a documentary?
If so then we can move on to the next example if you like.

sheepdog wrote:Woodchip,

Moore isn't a shining example of journalistic integrity. I'll give you that. I don't suppose that you could concede that it seems that his film raises important questions and leave it at that, before we go any further into "Bloated Goat" rhetoric.

PS. Out of here to work Nell in a great big field. An opportunity to work on keeping her on the pressure when she drives. Cya guys in the PM.

Margo you should post some pics of your dog working the sheep. Be kinda neat to see what you're talking about.

Now pleasantries aside, I am not yet clear as to what "points" Moore is raising. I'm going to kinda tag along with Will but try not be redundant. To that effect, what point was Moore trying to raise by bringing up the Saudis? It sounds like they had preferential treatment the way Moore explains it, yet what Will shows no preferential treament was given as anyone could fly after the 13th. So Margo, what is your explanation of what Moore was doing in this particular episode?

Woodchip,

We are having a sheepdog get together on Sunday. I'm going to ask my teacher to take some pics of my dogs working and I'll get some pics of my pals and their dogs. Today was a drag, someone who shall remain nameless lost one of the sheep in the woods. I hasten to point out that it wasn't me and Nell. I spent the majority of the afternoon stumbling through the underbrush looking for it. I feel sorry for my friend, the owner of the sheep. As you know, it's a drag having one of your critters at the mercy of the coyotes.

Here's the thing on the Michael Moore thing: I will be happy to go out and dig up "the facts" about Moore's reporting of the Bin Ladens' departure from the U.S. I'll be happy to write a bloody treatise on it for you guys, if a couple of you will watch Farenheit 9/11. Until then, I don't believe that the onus of proof is on me. I went out and got the film and watched it, something I wasn't particularly keen to do in the first place, and now I'm expected to prove or disprove a fairly minor point in it's argument. To be honest with you, my photographic memory is not what it used to be and I returned the film a couple of days ago so...

I notice that you guys aren't refuting the film's much more problematic claim that the Bush family, family friends and business associates have had a long term business relationship with the House of Saud, and that the Saudis intervened on behalf of the Bin Ladens in the days following 9/11. In an interview on David Frost, Prince Bandar, the Saudi ambassador admits that his king asked the administration to release the Bin Ladens. What do you make of that? Don't you think that takes balls of brass even for a king who is sitting on the world's primary oil supply?

I'll save you the trouble Margo since all you have to do is go to the Michael Moore web site

[quote]FAHRENHEIT 9/11: â??The White House approved planes to pick up the bin Ladens and numerous other Saudis.â?

sheepdog wrote:He didn't lie. He believed that the Bin Ladens left the country before air travel was resumed and he reported it. Later he learned that he was wrong.

Let's substitute another incident for the portion in bold.

He didn't lie. He believed that Iraq had not destroyed all of their weapons stockpiles and he reported it. Later he learned that he was wrong.


Now if the Democratic Presidential Nominee can take the above circumstance and call it "deliberately misleading the nation", I'm not seeing how you can defend Michael Moore. If Michael Moore says something that isn't true, why then that's a lie, at least according to Senator Kerry's logic.

Oh, and what's this business in Fallujah about chemical weapons? I've only heard preliminary reports, which are usually unreliable, so I'm waiting on the independent verifications.


- Sirian

Syrian,

What was that the wise Gooberman once said? Oh yes:

"Heh?"

Ford Perfect,

My heartfelt thanks.

Margo

Ford Prefect wrote:I guess if you see the movie you can decide if he makes the flight while grounded claim yourself instead of believing someone else's claim.

I saw that part of the movie as well as some others and it was plain as day that Moore wanted the viewers to think that the bin Ladden family were all allowed to fly out of here before anyone else could fly anywhere. And I've heard a lot of idiots repeat that claim.

This whole parsing of words is reminiscent of Clintons "it depends on what the meaning of is is". I'm comfortable acknowledging that in both cases Moore and Clinton can claim a technical non-lie in the literal sense. And I'm full aware that in both instances they both misrepresented the story.

However, what we are talking about here is a film, supposed to be a documentery, so full of distortions and out of context quotes and snippets of film with misleading narrative over them that it leads the viewer to believe something that is far from the truth. To achieve that end Moore had to go out of his way to avoid just telling the truth, the whole truth.... and instead edit together pieces of 'truth' that when run together in the sequence he chose leads the viewer to draw conclusions that are not based on the whole story or the reality of what happened.

If that is "good reporting"...if that is a 'good documentary' in your eyes then have at it.

He should have won Best Political Campaign Film, not Best Documentary and people should be confident enough in their beliefs that they don't need a bunch of disinformation to back them up in those beliefs.

People who hail Moore as a patriotic dissenter are nothing more than the equivilant of Rush Limbaugh Ditto heads on the left.

Here's another question. if Moore did indeed lie.. how come he hasn't been sued for slander or libel?

Ferno, as I read it Moore dodn't out and out lie. He created a perception of something suspicious by artful arranging of facts and sly innuendo. It was then left to the viewer to come to a conclusion. No direct lying or slander involved.

So can we put this particular aspect of Moore's movie as a deceit perpetrated on the viewing public?
Whats the next point?

Well the point is Woodchip.......
Umm I mean the important thing.....
Err....
After four pages I think I forgot.


Oh yeah don't believe something just because you want it to be true.
Or something like that.