DescentBB

woodchip wrote:Since Moore and Soros had no qualms about attacking Bush on a personal level, I have no compunction about doing the same in return.

Justifying your bad behavior by pointing to theirs? I reject this excuse. How are you going to win the debate if you so readily sacrifice the high ground?

You would be far more effective in furthering your aims if you show a level of restraint and character that they do not. Actions speak louder than words.


- Sirian

Tyranny wrote:..it's one thing to spout INFORMED political opinions but when you try to pass off SPIN as factual information presented as a documentary, which it is NOT, you should be shot IMO.

Change the word "documentary" to "race for the presidency" and you got it in one.

Tyranny wrote:Moore is a straight out and out liar.

I believe the laws of the United States of America protect individuals and corporations from libel, and slander quite effectively. See anyone suing Moore for telling lies? I also believe opinions and the ability to freely air them is a part of the Constitution of the United States of America. Do you not live there?

Tyranny wrote:To me he is the lowest form of scum, someone who takes advantage of tragedies to turn a profit.

So you've got your own opinion then? o_O

Change the sentence to read "To me the Republican Party and President Bush are the lowest form of scum, an organization which creates wars so their rich buddies can take advantage of massive war profiteering and human misery"

Tyranny wrote:Trust me, before it's said and done someone is going to bust a cap in his fat bloated *** and you won't see me shedding a single tear. One less maggot to worry about.

Yes, I agree - but wait - You ARE talking about President George W. Bush aren't you?

heh

Rotfl

"Shall I start with his most egregious expoundment that there is no terrorism?"

Do you know if he has said this in the F9/11?

Sirian wrote:

woodchip wrote:Since Moore and Soros had no qualms about attacking Bush on a personal level, I have no compunction about doing the same in return.

Justifying your bad behavior by pointing to theirs? I reject this excuse. How are you going to win the debate if you so readily sacrifice the high ground?

You would be far more effective in furthering your aims if you show a level of restraint and character that they do not. Actions speak louder than words.


- Sirian

Bad behavior=flame baiting? You lament that this thread will lead to flame baiting yet you have no problem in promoting it. How droll
Picking one part of my reply to bolster your argument? How nice. How liberal. Attack the messenger instead of debating the issues. Too bad your reply does not answer the substantive portion of what I posted. Let me make it easy for you ...I've never claimed to be a nice guy or heaven forbid...politically correct. I'll leave that to morally superior people such as yourself. There, now that the question of bad behavior is out of the way perhaps your spasm of intellectual ennui will pass and you can exhibit defensive material on Moores claim that there is "No Terrorism" . You sir would be more effective by sticking to the issues instead of lecturing on morality.

Ferno, I believe Moore made the comments on terrorism after the movie was released. Correct me if I am wrong.

Tyranny wrote:..it's one thing to spout INFORMED political opinions but when you try to pass off SPIN as factual information presented as a documentary, which it is NOT, you should be shot IMO.

Change the word "documentary" to "race for the presidency" and you got it in one.

so your admitting that it wasnt a documentary and it was a political ad. where MM him self calls it a documentary and had it billed as such?

Mobius wrote:

Tyranny wrote:Moore is a straight out and out liar.

I believe the laws of the United States of America protect individuals and corporations from libel, and slander quite effectively. See anyone suing Moore for telling lies? I also believe opinions and the ability to freely air them is a part of the Constitution of the United States of America. Do you not live there?

those laws that protect companies do not apply in the EXTREMELY grey area of politics, you should study your law a little better

Mobius wrote:

Tyranny wrote:To me he is the lowest form of scum, someone who takes advantage of tragedies to turn a profit.

So you've got your own opinion then? o_O

Change the sentence to read "To me the Republican Party and President Bush are the lowest form of scum, an organization which creates wars so their rich buddies can take advantage of massive war profiteering and human misery"

you can't be THAT naive could you?

woodchip wrote:Ferno, I believe Moore made the comments on terrorism after the movie was released. Correct me if I am wrong.

You'll have to watch the movie in order to find the answer to that.

woodchip wrote:Picking one part of my reply to bolster your argument?

My beef is with ad hominem attacks on Moore. You have not only made such, but attempted to justify them. If my calling you to the carpet over that turns you into an adversary of mine, well, join the long list. I'm an equal opportunity critic who doesn't look for an (R) or a (D) beside the name, but looks at behavior.

woodchip wrote:Bad behavior=flame baiting?

Personal attacks in lieu of meaningful debate is bad behavior. Left, right, center, or space alien, it makes no difference to me on this point of principle.

woodchip wrote:You lament that this thread will lead to flame baiting yet you have no problem in promoting it.

Spin. But go ahead. I understood what I was getting in to when I criticized your behavior. You dish out personal attacks on those with whom you disagree. I hoped to impact that, but I understood that it was a long shot.

woodchip wrote:How nice. How liberal. Attack the messenger instead of debating the issues.

There is the first personal attack on me.

I've called you to account for this behavior, and you will account for it, one way or another.

woodchip wrote:Too bad your reply does not answer the substantive portion of what I posted.

Perhaps I have no disagreement with your substance, but only with your methods.

woodchip wrote:Let me make it easy for you ...I've never claimed to be a nice guy or heaven forbid...politically correct. I'll leave that to morally superior people such as yourself.

There's the second personal attack on me.

woodchip wrote:There, now that the question of bad behavior is out of the way perhaps your spasm of intellectual ennui will pass...

There's the third.

woodchip wrote:...and you can exhibit defensive material on Moores claim that there is "No Terrorism" .

I didn't come here to defend Moore's views. I came to clean up the thread. When you resort to personal attacks on Moore, you are feeding the troll. Do you understand what that means?


- Sirian

Bush had a bone to pick with Saddam. I said from day one before Bush was even elected President in 2000 that we didn't need another Bush in office because I knew a Desert Storm II would probably happen. Given the alternative however it didn't seem like a bad idea at the time.

Fast forward to 2001 and the terrorist attack. We're really pissed off as a country. We pound Afghanistan with missiles intended to kill Bin Laden and then start combing the mountain ranges with troops looking for him.

Then, surprise surprise, shock and awe begins in 2003. Anyone who didn't see that coming was very naive, and how many times have I said on this board that attacking Iraq and ousting Saddam was a target of opportunity. This is exactly what happend and I still support Bush for it. I'm just as disapointed as the next guy that we haven't tried 'harder' to get Bin Laden but then again not hearing any news on finding Bin Laden anymore doesn't exactly mean we haven't been looking as hard as possible to find and capture him.

Now, here we are debating about Moore again and what type of information he is giving to the American people. In many ways Moore is like our politicians, I never said otherwise. Your claims about Bush and Co. are typical being that you're not American so immediatly I really have to ignore those. Not to mention you're Mobi, which also removes any merit to your posts

one of the big differences for me between Moore and politicians is that Moore uses a different medium to spread his propoganda. Our politicians usually resort to a verbal platform and therefor are more prone to be seen through. Moore however uses images along with verbal narrations to illustrate his message. His biggest mistake is resorting to the placement of footage used out of context method such as he used in Bowling for Columbine.

Just on the basis of using recorded footage alone he has a larger ability to deceive audiences. People are much more inclinded to believe what they see in tandem with what they hear then just on hearing something on it's own. That is why Moore's methods are so effective, because he can just edit the footage to say something other then what was actually said by swapping footage out of context, and then spew it forth as fact to try and sway the peoples opinions.

He doesn't believe in what he puts forth anymore then most of us do, but he has an agenda of his own, and it sure as hell isn't enlightening people to the truth.

Sirian - 1

Woodchippy - 0

lol


Tyr: have you seen the movie?

One thing about liberals that has me absolutely foaming at the mouth these days is their casual assumption that anyone who doesn't agree couldn't possibly disagree for good reasons. That their way is so much better and so clearly better.

In class the other day, talking about the supreme court, one of my classmates says such-and-such a judge [is old and ill and it going to die soon] "lucky for us he's a conservative"! Assuming on mine and everyone else present's behalf that Liberalism is just plain better. Not two different ways to do things, a way to do things and a way to fail.

It infuriates me.

Sirian wrote:"YOU ONLY ADD TO HIS POWER"

Shouting is bad form in any debate

Sirian wrote:"If my calling you to the carpet over that turns you into an adversary of mine"

Pugnacity, chastisement and confrontational challenges only stimulate like replys.

Sirian wrote:There is the first personal attack on me. I've called you to account for this behavior, and you will account for it, one way or another.

Implied threat. In any debate threatening the opponent is truly bad form. I suggest if you want to impress your point of view on me you set aside aggressive behavior.

Sirian wrote:There's the second personal attack on me.
There's the third.

Is there a magic number where your implied threat kicks in?

Sirian wrote:I didn't come here to defend Moore's views. I came to clean up the thread.

So who named you the hall monitor?

Sirian wrote:you are feeding the troll. Do you understand what that means?

I do but perhaps you should explain it to Ferno

I didn't see the movie, I saw Tim Russert interview him and he pounded him on a few of the claims that the movie was not factual and full of distortions. When Moore was cornered a few times and challenged to answer the question directly on the charge that he used the film to spread lies Moore finally threw up his arms in defeat and smiled, saying "well, it's entertainment".

So at that point I knew, from the creator of the film himself, that he let the world applaud it as a documentary but admitted he used outright lies and many distortions. He didn't do any more 'real' interviews after that either.

So why would I want to go see it? I wouldn't know which parts are real and which parts are propoganda!
Not my idea of a good film. I don't want to have to go and research the content after seeing it before I can know what to think about it. I already have to do that with each broadcast of the nightly news.

Yeah Ferny, I ordered it on PPV the day before the elections

woodchip wrote:Shouting is bad form in any debate

The personal attacks failed you and you've given up on them for now. That's progress. Unfortunately, we're not yet home, as you're on to a slew of diversions.

Shouting is something done with the voice. Some folks interpret all caps text as shouting, but I do not.

There are several ways to emphasize text: bold, italics, underline, color, font, and capital letters. Of those six, five rely on word processor capability that is not always available. I have a two-decades long habit of using caps for emphasis. Sometimes that backfires, when folks would rather seize on the format as a diversionary tactic than to deal with the substance. But sure, go ahead, as I can score another point by revealing what you are doing.

That was diversion number one.

woodchip wrote:Pugnacity, chastisement and confrontational challenges only stimulate like replys.

Sophistry.

Debate is by its nature a confrontational challenge. Chastisement is warranted to correct misbehavior. You opened yourself to criticism by making personal attacks on Michael Moore, and you painted a bullseye on your chest by justifying it when called to the carpet and turning your barbs against me. Now you want to paint me as pugnacious? The best defense is a good offense, eh? Sorry, that's not going to work for you, either. Diversion number two.

One person is launching personal attacks and proud of it, the other is asking him to stop that. I'll let the audience decide who is the more pugnacious.

woodchip wrote:Implied threat.

Now you're grasping at straws and grabbing thin air. I said that you will be held to account one way or another. The one way is that you will accept responsibility for erroneous behavior. The other way is the loss of face you suffer if you cling to a losing position and go down with your ship.

All I have to do to win in this argument is to keep my own nose clean, because yours isn't. No personal attacks on you, no diversions, no manipulations, no flawed logic, and no gloating. Make the stronger argument and then stand on it.

That is all you would have to do to win against Michael Moore. He's a king of the cheap shot. If you stick to an objective response, you will be more effective in countering his propaganda. If you get suckered in to flaming him, you cede to him the high ground. Why are you doing that? How can you walk right in to his trap like that?

You can dance around all you please. I've got you nailed on this point, and the more you squirm, the worse it will get for you. On the other hand, this is also an opportunity for you. Look around. Who else here can hold up to the standard I'm now applying to you? I'm looking out for you by holding you to a very high standard. Why did I choose you instead of one of these other folks who are doing similar things? You can think about that one if you want to figure it out.

woodchip wrote:In any debate threatening the opponent is truly bad form.

This was diversion number three.

woodchip wrote:Is there a magic number where your implied threat kicks in?

Diversion number four.

woodchip wrote:So who named you the hall monitor?

Diversion number five.

woodchip wrote:perhaps you should explain it to Ferno

Diversion number six.


Score:
Accepting responsibility: Zero
Changing the subject: Six times


- Sirian

My thread was crapPed on

Gooberman wrote:My thread was craped on

You posted a news link and a smiley. You prompted some exchanges about Michael Moore. Um... What Moore did you want?

- Sirian

Exactly this!

Gooberman wrote:My thread was craped on

CRAPPED!!!! TWO P's DUDE!!!

you know how I said I wasn't gonna snipe at you Tyr? I'm going to hold up my end of the deal. but sarcastic replies like that tend to make me reconsider.

"I didn't see the movie, I saw Tim Russert interview him and he pounded him on a few of the claims that the movie was not factual and full of distortions. When Moore was cornered a few times and challenged to answer the question directly on the charge that he used the film to spread lies Moore finally threw up his arms in defeat and smiled, saying "well, it's entertainment".

So at that point I knew, from the creator of the film himself, that he let the world applaud it as a documentary but admitted he used outright lies and many distortions. He didn't do any more 'real' interviews after that either."

Let's analyse this Will...

I'll first off state that I don't know this Tim guy from a hole in the wall. Mr. Russert makes the claim that the movie is full of lies. Moore did not answer him directly but said that it was 'entertainment' but didn't say if he had lied or not. I see that you conclude that Moore admitted he lied, when no such thing was said by Moore.

I also see you left a BIIIIG chunk of information out but decided to use a vauge description of "cornered a few times" without using specific examples. Also, you can't state ONE THING that Moore lied about. And neither could the host.

Usually when people lie about what happened, it's usually a little vauge, and can be countered with very specific examples. But it seems to be the other way around. Had you seen the movie you would be able to recall specifics Moore used and try and refute those.

Now: how can I even believe you when you use vauge references that are no more specific than Mr. Russert? It's almost as if you are PARROTING the host of this interview.

OK, here are 59 specific examples.

Well Sirian I played you along for long enough. If you are going to defend the high ground I suggest you make sure your personna is squeaky clean. Certainly religious types , after proselytizing how the rest of us should lead our lives, were caught either with their finger in the till or with their trousers lying at the bed of some cheap hooker. Sadly you are reduced to the same state of affairs. Below are some of the attack/name calling you exhibited:

"!@#$! idiots. We need to drag those fools into a closet somewhere and give them a good beating."Sirian

phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=4539&highlight=

"Left wingers don't understand the meaning of accountability. They wouldn't know what it was if if bit them on the @$$."Sirian

Attack on Bird:
"I think you must be smoking the pungent weed again, because clearly you are failing to process the first point."Sirian

Attack on Cops:
"Finally, I must say that I am deeply impressed with your command of the English language. Please inform us as to where you were schooled, so that we morons can apply, in the hope that we may benefit from the kind of education that you have put on display for us tonight. Thank you."Sirian

TheCops wrote:
why is that sirian guy going for the grammar attack anyways?

"Quickest way to point out that the pot was calling the kettle black. Your remarks are incoherent and crass." Sirian

TheCops wrote:
it's not going to change the fact that i don't know, or care to know, who he is.

"n00b" Sirian

phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=4510&highlight=

Attack on SonicC's brother:

"Your brother matured? Wow, that's a miracle." Sirian

Why not just take moral high ground and say "I'm glad to hear your brothers doing well"

"People need stuff to blab about and to get emotional over" Sirian

Precisely, which is why I choose verbal caricature painting.

So all in all Sirian, while you are trying to preach to me how to lead a better posting life, you are as guilty as anyone here in making derogatory comments. It is too bad I had to catch you with your pants down and your hypocrisy exposed.
Don't bother replying as I view this as the end to any of my interest in our tete a tete.
Check and checkmate

I love this thread so much.

Otherone wrote:OK, here are 59 specific examples.

Good stuff Otherone but it is hard to read ... following is a summary. The bottom line is that Moore is a stoopid fuggin commie embicile that hates America and it's people. He is willing to lie, cheat, and steal to trick the people into supporting his own hidden agenda(s).

[edit] See phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=79665#79665

3. A 6-month study by a consortium of major newspapers shows that Bush would have won the Florida recount under any of the terms which Gore sought in his lawsuits.

This is just wrong. As are the numerous "studies" that said that Gore would have won. Bush "won" by 500 votes, the margin of error was 8000. We don't know who won, we will never know who won, and margin of errors are not like the magical pixie faries of bubble yum forest. They are real.

Both sides are playing with numbers, the reality is we just don't know. End of story.

yay! mudslinging time!

Ferno your frequent one-liners are so amusing

I think I'm a bit more entitled to throw out one liners and snipe considering I don't really make it as much of a habit as some other people I know on this board Ferny Not to mention a good portion of my posts in E&C have been quick little light hearted jabs and good tomfoolery.

Generally when I do seriously post in here I attempt to pound out a couple paragraphs. Trust me, I have a lot of catching up to do if I wanted to get even remotely close to the same snipe count range you and Birds have amassed for yourselves

woodchip wrote:If you are going to defend the high ground I suggest you make sure your personna is squeaky clean.

Diversion number seven.

This is a skillful diversion, I admit. However, your grand display of gloating is premature.

How long did it take you to search all of my recent posts to come up with that very short list of items to throw back in my face? The only one you score with is the attack on Birds. That one was a bona fide indulgence, and I was wrong to take that shortcut. The rest of those are not personal attacks.

Suppose I were to try the same trick. How many items do you think I could accumulate? Is Michael Moore the only target you've attacked? But no, I'm not going to play your game. This is just another diversion.

woodchip wrote:So all in all Sirian, while you are trying to preach to me how to lead a better posting life, you are as guilty as anyone here

This is more of the same. You justify your bad behavior by pointing to others. Michael Moore's nose isn't clean, so you take that as carte blanche to attack him. Out of all of the volume I've posted to this board, you find one slip and that counts in your mind as hypocrisy on my part? You spent, what? An hour? Two? Now that you've established that I'm not perfect (something I never claimed to be) you feel justified for your personal attacks on me and your squirming and diversions to avoid taking responsibility for your own behavior?


So now we have progressed from personal attacks through diversions to smug attempts to dominate through blunt force. Let me count the ways.

woodchip wrote:Sirian I played you

Domination attempt number one.

woodchip wrote:Sadly you are reduced

Domination attempt number two.

woodchip wrote:It is too bad I had to catch you

Domination attempt number three.

woodchip wrote:Don't bother replying

Domination attempt number four.

woodchip wrote:I view this as the end to any of my interest

Domination attempt number five.

woodchip wrote:Check and checkmate

Domination attempt number six.


SCORE

Accepting responsibility:
Sirian - 1 (attack on Birdseye)
woodchip - 0

Personal attacks:
Sirian - 0
woodchip - 3

Diversions:
Sirian - 0
woodchip - 7

Domination attempts:
Sirian - 0
woodchip - 6

Gloating:
Sirian - 0
woodchip - 1


Seeking yet another angle from which to attack me is not going to work for you. All that you can accomplish from that approach is to lengthen the scoring summary.


- Sirian

Goob: Try reading the long HTML version rather than the pdf summary that Ice posted in the other thread. Your point about the margin of error is irrelevant to Koppel's argument, as are all but one of the "studies" that gave Gore the victory.

Ice: Goob's post shows exactly why I posted the long version. The pdf summary is just too easy to dismiss because it doesn't back up any of the assertions it makes.

Sirian wrote:Seeking yet another angle from which to attack me is not going to work for you. All that you can accomplish from that approach is to lengthen the scoring summary.

haha, sorry but I found that funny.

*biatch slaps Woody* nya nya!

I can't find anywhere in that article that talks about margin of error. "margin of error" turned up zero matches when I searched it. I can tell you I had a liberal Stat420 professor that used this example frequently.

Can you give me a line # where this is addressed? Thx.

Glad you like em Ice. Without some comedic relief E&C would probably be all doom and gloom.

Tyr: I can't snipe without a target.

Goob: I don't believe the list talks about the margin of error. My statement about it being irrelevant to the point made by the list is totally my own. That item talks about Bush winning under ACTUAL recount scenarios. Maybe Gore could have won in some THEORETICAL recount scenario that took the margin of error into account but thats no real help to those of us stuck here in the real world.

Goob: I don't believe the list talks about the margin of error. My statement about it being irrelevant to the point made by the list is totally my own. That item talks about Bush winning under ACTUAL recount scenarios. Maybe Gore could have won in some THEORETICAL recount scenario that took the margin of error into account but thats no real help to those of us stuck here in the real world.

Margin of errors are not theoretical, they are real. I am not talking about recounts, I am talking about the error of the actual count. Margin of error means that we are only able to accuratly say that Bush won anywhere from x to y votes, and Gore won anywhere from z to w votes, and those numberspands overlap. We have no way of knowing where the actual number for either of them lies in that range!

If I tell you that a table is 10ft plus or minus 4ft, and another table is 9.75ft plus or minus 4ft (I scaled these numbers to match the 2000 presidential race). It is impossible for you to tell me which table is bigger. You can only claim that the first table is slightly more likely to be bigger. But the fact is that you just don't know.

I am talking about Margin of error, you are trying to give me an article that refutes it by talking about "recounts." These are apples and oranges, they have almost nothing to do with eachother. The only correlation is that by having several recounts the margin of error can be reduced.

I am not arguing that margins of error aren't real concepts and I fully agree that we're talking apples and oranges here. The problem is that Moore, Koppel, and I are all talking about apples any you're the one throwing the oranges into the mix.

In particular, this list factually refutes a SPECIFIC claim that Moore makes (apples). It is not trying to refute all possible arguments related to the Florida recounts (oranges). F911 claims that Gore won in ALL scenarios. Koppel shows that a study exists that counteracts that claim and therefore F911's claim is false.

You *may* well be right that the margin of error throws the whole election into doubt, however that is not the argument that Moore is making so therefore it is irrelevant to both Moore's distortion and Koppel's refutation. (It also happens to be irrelevant to the arguments that Gore's legal team was making in 2000 but that's beside the point.)

Update: The reference to actual vs. theoretical in my previous post was obviously a little heavy on snarkiness and light on clarity. What I meant was that the studies in question examined what the results would have been had Gore gotten to do recounts the way he wanted. There are other studies that show Gore winning under other scenarios, however they don't really matter because Gore wasn't trying to use those scenarios. Thus we have actual vs. theoretical recount scenarios.

Otherone, I wrote:

This is just wrong. As are the numerous "studies" that said that Gore would have won. Bush "won" by 500 votes, the margin of error was 8000. We don't know who won, we will never know who won, and margin of errors are not like the magical pixie faries of bubble yum forest. They are real.

Both sides are playing with numbers, the reality is we just don't know. End of story.

You then wrote under me,

Goob: Try reading the long HTML version rather than the pdf summary that Ice posted in the other thread. Your point about the margin of error is irrelevant to Koppel's argument, as are all but one of the "studies" that gave Gore the victory.

Ice: Goob's post shows exactly why I posted the long version. The pdf summary is just too easy to dismiss because it doesn't back up any of the assertions it makes.

I post about margin of error, you tell me "try reading the long version." (Why if it doesn't refute my post?) and then say "Goob's post is exactly why I posted the long version."

You refuted my origional post using oranges, when I was saying they are both wrong, because of the apples. If you now agree that they are seperate, then your first reply makes no sence relative to the context of my post.

OK, I see your point. I interpreted your "This is just wrong" and "both sides are just playing with numbers" to refer to Kopel's refutation rather than to the arguments outlined in the newspaper study he referenced.

(I may disagree with your assertions on the validity of the studies as well but that's not what I'm arguing and I have no interest in going there so I'm done).

I just want to share that I haven't watched Farenheit 9/11 because I am afraid of how badly it will make me feel.

As I pointed out in the other thread, I have seen Moore's previous movies, and I would be surprised if anyone who has posted in this thread wouldn't enjoy them. I'm not saying that you would agree with them, but I think it's likely that you would be stimulated by them and most of you would enjoy the dark humor and activism that characterizes them.

I'm going to grit my teeth and watch Farenheit 9/11 this weekend and I think that those of you who are opining on something you haven't seen should do the same.