This is a general statement to all Michael Moore fans on this board.

We are here to discuss Mr. Bradbury's work. Discussion concearning the dispute between MM and Bradbury is welcomed, but I find it very unneccasary for every MM fan who comes here to start a new thread telling Mr. Bradbury that he is old and senile... First of all, I think that he is well aware of his age. Secondly, I think that if he were diagnosed as senile he would know of it by now, but he has not been so I don't think it is appropriate or neccasary in either case to tell him that he is senile. Please leave these comments out of the conversations because they are irrelevant statements.

If you have anything to say about the subject say it here. Starting a new thread is not neccasary.

Better move this one up, unfortunately. He's appearing on the Tonight Show this week.

I am pretty sure that this section of the board is titled "Inspired by Ray" there are other sections in which you can wax poetic about all his works and how they have changed fictional writing yesterday, today, and tomorrow....

Therefore i see no reason why people cant discuss the things that Bradbury has done in recent times....

You dont have to get into the discussion if it seems to edgy or opinionated for you....

and you certainly dont have to chide new users like children for starting their own threads...

i dont see anyone starting a new thread telling people to stop bringing up the fact that Moore is overweight

I am pretty sure that this section of the board is titled "Inspired by Ray" there are other sections in which you can wax poetic about all his works and how they have changed fictional writing yesterday, today, and tomorrow....

Therefore i see no reason why people cant discuss the things that Bradbury has done in recent times....

You dont have to get into the discussion if it seems to edgy or opinionated for you....

and you certainly dont have to chide new users like children for starting their own threads...

i dont see anyone starting a new thread telling people to stop bringing up the fact that Moore is overweight


I haven't noticed anyone using Moore's excessive amount of body fat as an argument that he is wrong as Bradbury's age is being used against him. If it has occurred, I'm sorry. I don't think it's very mature to say stuff like that about either person.

I think it would be nice if new users would look at the board a little before making new threads though, because I have seen many threads started with the same or very similar prompt or message as a thread that is already in existance. I do not ask people to stop making new threads about the same subject because I find them edgy or opionated. I ask because I would like to see this board clean up a little and not have multiple threads on the same subject. It is a waste of my time as well as the time of other viewers on this board.

This is not only occurring in the 'inspired by Ray' section though.

[This message has been edited by John Galt (edited 07-27-2004).]

I dont know about you but I cant wait for Bill O'reilly to chew moore up and spit him out tonight on the factor. you can bet money ill be watchin it. tonight at 8 est on Fox news. its ganna be great!!

Just watched Michael Moore and Bill O'Riley go at it on Fox News. My observation will disappoint some, but I thought Michael Moore held his own.

Oh really now?... I thought his performance was weak. Weaker than even I expected. First of all, in my honest opinion, Michael Moore lost every argument, but that's what happens w/ biased viewers. I'll explain though. For O'reilly's question Moore did not seem to be trying to convince me that Bush did in fact lie to America, rather it seemed to be a weak attempt to convince himself that he was right. I thought O'reilly brought up a good point that the fact that three different intelligence agencies from around the world told Bush that their were WMD's in Iraq. It is simply a case of bad information (And who knows. Saddam very well could have moved them out) That's all I really have to say on that question for now.

I thought Moore's question was very weak and he followed it up w/ cheap shots. O'reilly responded to the initial question as well as anyone could expect. Moore then pressed on and used referred back to O'reilly's question saying that they died for no reason. O'reilly handled that well, saying that they did remove an evil dictator. Moore continued to pursue the question asking Moore, "Would you risk the life of your child to secure Falujah(sp?)?" IMO that was a very cheap shot and a terrible thing to say. Of course he would not. O'reilly responded "No, but I would risk my life to secure Falujah." I thought that was a fit response. Moore pressed on. He wanted O'reilly to say that he would risk his child's life as if the parents of the soldiers are the ones who made the decison for their children to join the military.

I don't remember the rest of the conversation, but I would like to make more comments on the second question.

Moore doesn't seem to understand the fact that the "children" in the military are adults. They made the decison to join the military and knew the possible consequences. Their parents also knew the risks their children were taking and that they would have to live w/ the results. I don't want to sound cold and inconsiderate, because I do mourn the death of any soldier lost for the cause, but I think it needs to be understood that they were the ones who risked their lives, not George Bush.


"Just watched Michael Moore and Bill O'Riley go at it on Fox News. My observation will disappoint some, but I thought Michael Moore held his own."

Not disappointed at all. It's merely an opinion.

[This message has been edited by John Galt (edited 07-27-2004).]

john galt thats exactly what my father says, growing up on military bases my entire life, because my dad was in the army for 18 years, really opens your eyes up. I understand the fact that my dad entered the military with knowing that he might have to go to war. he might even have to die for his country. he told me this is a risk someone who enters the military takes. they know they might die but they go because they believe in what they are fighting for. they believe in their country. people for one reason or another try to blame Bush for these brave men and women, not "children" like moore calls them, dieing for their country.

but on the factor tonight, what I saw was that moore dodged all the questions!!! he didnt answer a single one of Bills questions he asked him.
but you get used to this sorta thing after watching hannity and glenn beck and rush and "the great one" mark levin debate liberals left and right and all they ever seem to do is dodge the questions they ask them. but the factor was interesting tonight. deff. interesting....

does anyone else listen to hannity and beck and rush and levin besides me im just curious???

el stevieboy,
Glad to see someone else who can see through the screen of lies.


I also thought that Moore's conditions for appearing on the show were a bit ironic considering his history of editing and manipulating speeches to demean his victims.

Another thing about Moore that I'd like to get off my chest is my outrage that he portrayed Charelton Heston as a racist. This man Marched with Martin Luther King Jr. fighting for Civil Rights back in the 60's. MM is a despicable man and can not be trusted.

John,
Morre showed actual footage - uncut at that - and heston simply condemned himself.

I agree that soldiers are adults, and that they make their own decisions. They are at fault for dying in Iraq - they shouldn't have gone to the military in the first place.

I havn't seen the show, but from what I gather, moore did ok.

As a matter of fact, here is the interview. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,127236,00.html


O reilley is a very smart guy, I can give him that. To judge fairly, Mooore lost, but both had black eyes after the fight. I personally think that Moore may not be the best front for the Anti-Bush, anti-war crowd. He's got allright movies - though I was dissapointed with his latest - but his arguments aren't all that great sometimes. He doesn't follow through with his logic long enough, and he puts himslef in situations which are hard to defend. So Moore is ok, but not the best.
I'd love to take that O'reilley guy one on one; he was good, but he made huge mistakes.

Cheers, Translator

Moore is a good film maker. I'll give him that. Unfortunately, as you would expect from a man you dropped out of his freshman year of college, he is not the smartest cookie in the jar.

Moore did in fact show live footage, but what he did was craftily edit and splice footage together to make him appear like a cold, unfeeling man which, in my honest opinion, is not true.

Anyone catch his appearance on the Tonight Show?

quote:

Originally posted by John Galt:
Moore is a good film maker. I'll give him that. Unfortunately, as you would expect from a man you dropped out of his freshman year of college, he is not the smartest cookie in the jar.

Being a college dropout does not make you an idiot....college is simply an extension of what ever specialty you wish to learn about....since you yourself said Moore was a good filmmaker and he is obviously doing all right for himself why did he need to finish college? I know plenty of dumb people who are going to ivy league colleges.....

Indeed he is a good film maker, but I think that taking some courses in college in history and the sorts might have prevented him from making a fool out of himself.

explain