Michael Moores' F 9/11... will you see it? by Ghoulman

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

SignyM: JCobb-Oh wow, so you're a libertarian! You like minimal government and personal responsibility? OK, let's see... how has dubya decreased government inteference in YOUR life???

JCobb For the record I do not like Dubya. I did not vote for him. That said, I don't think a propoganda film based on lies and misrepresentation is the "way" to go. Personally I won't be voting for either Bush or Kerry, this coming up election. Will probably do a write in, like I did last election.

SignyM FYI I didn't vote for either Gore OR Bush, so at least we have something in common! But how do you consider this movie propaganda??? Isn't it just saying what a lot of ex-appointees and current/former staffers are saying??? Isn't it taken from real film and credible information???

-------------------

SignyM Well, he's made warrantless searches MUCH easier.

JCobb Talking about the Patriot Act? Do you really want to shoulder Bush for the blame for that? I mean, its not like the Democrats had NOTHING to do with it, right?

SignyM Well he proposed it and rammed it through. I AM disapointed in the Democrats for not having more spine, but Bush is the evildoer.

--------------------------

SignyM He's made it extremely difficult for you to find out what your government has done/ is doing. Ashcroft instructed staff to stonewall FOIA requests, Cheney claims to have information that he didn't give to the 9/11 Commission, records of past Presidents who approved release have been sealed. Transparency!

JCobb Welcome to Washington. Thats what happens there, bud. Forget the president in power, or his political leanings, this is what happens there. It was built on a swamp, and not a whole lot has changed.

SignyM No, what Bush, Ashcroft and Cheney have done is truly unprecedented. For example, the administration have NEVER before openly defied (by memo) the FOIA or sealed presidential records.
---------------------

SignyM Oh, and between a woman and her doctor.

JCobb And he sees it as murder, I don't know if I disagree with Bush on this one. Like I said, I am a libertarian, I believe in personal accountability. When she had sex, (its PROCREATION FOR PETES SAKE) there was always the chance of her getting pregnant. When she did, she still has rights, but so does the unborn child within her. Action, reaction. She must be ready to accept the consequences of her actions. She can have as much freedom as she likes, but when it starts impeding on the child's rights, (LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of hapiness where the unalienable ones IIRC) she loses all rights as far as I am concerned.

SignyM As was pointed out in a previous posting- and where's the DAD'S PERSOANL RESPONSIBILITY in all this? It is zipped up in his pants as he walks away???

And doesn't it strike you as just a bit... odd... that Bush gets all tweaked about something that may (or may not) be a human life but then throws real living human beings to the executioner or to war? As ar as I can tell, Bush doesn't have ANY problem with disposing of human lives- he just wants the decision in HIS hands. But since he doesn't have the PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY, I won't grant him the authority.

------------------------------
SignyM He (and his brother and the Supremes) have invalidated voter registrations of tens of thousands of law-abiding citizens.

JCobb The convicts, the dead 'folks, and perhaps one or two of those legally able to vote. If you think that Bush is the only one abusing or misusing that right you are sadly mistaken.

SignyM Your ignorance is showing. out of an approximately 700-person sample of the 60,000 registrations on the Florida "scrub list" only 5% (yes, FIVE PERCENT) could be validated as being ex-felons not allowed to vote. Even the contractor who generated that list warned Katherine Harris that her instructions created far too broad a list, and says that it was intended to have more names on it than actually belonged there. Chew on that one for a bit.

--------------------------

SignyM So, that must be where your heart REALLY is- with the big corporations. Scratch a Libertarian lightly and you usually find a coporate-kisser underneath

JCobb I love the hatred of the "faceless" corporation. Damn those bastards! Damn the ones that seek to achieve something with their lives, to reach out and grab that American Dream! Damn them from employing Americans, for giving them work, for giving them benefits! Those bastards!

Company's are made up of individuals. Individuals have rights.

Again, I don't know where you get most of the stuff you posted about me, (assumptions?) but I don't appreciate it.

SignM Actually JCobb, I think I hit the nail on the head. And I have about a zillion disagreements with your last statement, but I'll try to pare it down.

Let me explain this slowly and clearly.

Corporations are NOT individuals or even the aggregate of individual owners. Corporations have their own interests, their own lifespan, their own rights that are distinct and separate from- sometimes even contradicting- the rights of their owners and Board members. So- yes, corporations really ARE "faceless" and it IS possible to hate corporations and still appreciate people with drive and creativity.

People don't "have" rights. Rights are granted to them by the government and by the set of laws that we agree to live by. Even to so-called "free market" is sustained by law.

Corporations don't "employ" people. Corporations actually cause unemployment.

---------------------------

JCobb Now, maybe you approve of the leftist agenda? Perhaps you wish to take away my right to keep and bear arms? Signym Nope.o such intentions in that direction

JCobb Perhaps you wish to comprimise national security by putting someone in the Whitehouse that isn't willing to take steps that might not be popular, but that will make a difference, (this isn't a reference to Bush, persay). SignyM Actually, I would LOVE a person in the White House who would take steps that will make a difference- a POSITIVE difference!

JCobb So, while we are getting off on tangents and making assumptions, you're heart must really lie with the terrorists, and their disrupting our way of life. So(Sorry, had to be a right winger there for Ghoulman. HINT *Don't take this seriously*) SignyM Sorry, but taking a swipe at someone and them telling them "it's a joke" just doesn't cut it.

DON'T TREAD ON ME.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 24, 2004 3:28 PM

@ Heb

Oh, makes perfect sense to me. And I agree with much of what you are saying.

As far as sex is concerned, I do agree. Many people view it as recreation, and I have no problem with that. However, they are always taking the chance, the one in one thousand, that the woman will end up getting pregnant, and I think that they should be willing to accept that.

As far as rape is concerned, I think thats a much more gray area. I wouldn't say one way or the other, but I would hope that a woman would have the bravery and courage to give birth, and if nothing else put the baby up for adoption to the thousands of couples that can not have children. Now, such courage and bravery is rare, not because women are cowards, but because, as I understand it from talking and listening to victims of rape, it can be one of the most horrible things I can ever imagine. It would just be so difficult, (and maybe courage and bravery aren't the right words to describe the women that decide not to get an abortion) to go through the entire pregnancy being reminded of the ordeal.

Anyways, good post, bud, I hope my raving "right wing" speak doesn't scare you off.

I don't care, I'm still free.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 24, 2004 4:14 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Do you people not even CARE about the truth? (Being broad and sweeping here.) ... He (Moore) lies constantly ... this is just a travesty. Bah, I suppose you can lead a horse to water, but you can't force them to drink. ... you're heart must really lie with the terrorists

she still has rights, but so does the unborn child within her ... when it starts impeding on the child's rights, (LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness where the unalienable ones IIRC) she loses all rights as far as I am concerned.

JCobb
You are so incensed over Moore's lies, so hate-filled toward anyone who doesn't agree with you.
I could substitute 'Bush' into many statements and they would be perfectly true. Why no outrage over Bush's lies, or those of anyone in his administration?

BTW, for someone who declaims about personal responsibility, you sure take an authoritarian approach to abortion. Are you a wannabe dictator over what people believe?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 24, 2004 4:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

Below

Quote:

But how do you consider this movie propaganda??? Isn't it just saying what a lot of ex-appointees and current/former staffers are saying??? Isn't it taken from real film and credible information???

I can't say, I haven't seen it. I have read reviews from people I trust claiming it as such, and from Moore's past work I will easily assume it to be so. If George George Stephanopoulos can safely categorize it, IIRC, as propoganda, then I think I will consider it such until I decide to view it. But if you are wondering how 'something real' can be turned into propoganda, its not that hard. For example, if I was of the mind, I could take the September 11th attacks, make a movie showing them, take soundbytes and what have you, show pictures of Clinton on vacation, switch over to some terrorist training camps, show muslims with guns, cut to some people being beheaded by more muslims, cut to our troops victoriously taking Iraq with a terribly small number of casualties, show that those that compare it to Iraq just need to look at the number of casualties, (switch between the two numbers with a shot of the American flag in the background) go to a shot of Kennedy and Johnson talking about the Vietnam war and how it will be over soon, how well we are progressing, to a shot of the young men being blown to smithereens, the years ticking by with the number of troops only increasing, to a shot of Nixon removing troops and then the troops cheering, cut to a shot of the Iran hostages and Jimmy Carter fumbling his way through, etc...

Something can be completely accurately filmed, but not completely accurately shown. I can show excerpts of a film that can be misleading.

All completely factual, and most of it terribly misleading. Hell, I might pull a Moore and just grab excerpts of speeches and then play them to make the people sound as bad as possible.

Quote:
Well he proposed it and rammed it through. I AM disapointed in the Democrats for not having more spine, but Bush is the evildoer.

Erm, Bush is the evildoer for supporting the Patriot Act?

http://www.campusprogram.com/reference/en/wikipedia/u/us/usa_patriot_a
ct.html

Firstly, I don't think the act makes anyone an 'evildoer' even if I strongly disagree with portions of it. Especially when it had nearly unanimous support at the time of passing. And it STILL holds strong support. Doesn't make it right, I will never equate the number of people supporting something with whether or not it is right, "May have been the losing side, still not convinced its the wrong one," never-the-less I don't totally disagree with the Patriot Act. Much of it deals with the funding and allocation of funding, and I do agree with that. One of the prime concerns I think the government should be concerned with is my physical safety.

And he rammed it through? I think it passed through with very little dissent from either side. If you want to blame Bush for it, you are fooling yourself.

Quote:
No, what Bush, Ashcroft and Cheney have done is truly unprecedented. For example, the administration have NEVER before openly defied (by memo) the FOIA or sealed presidential records.

And not to defend Bush on this one, I believe in freedom of information, but there are certain extenuating circumstances that I understand might impact national security. Maybe presidents haven't don't it by memo, but if you think its never happened before I do think you are fooling yourself.

Quote:
As was pointed out in a previous posting- and where's the DAD'S PERSOANL RESPONSIBILITY in all this? It is zipped up in his pants as he walks away???

And doesn't it strike you as just a bit... odd... that Bush gets all tweaked about something that may (or may not) be a human life but then throws real living human beings to the executioner or to war? As ar as I can tell, Bush doesn't have ANY problem with disposing of human lives- he just wants the decision in HIS hands. But since he doesn't have the PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY, I won't grant him the authority.

You said a woman and her doctor, I adressed the woman and her doctor. I think that the man has just as much responsability, but that really wasn't relevent to the question at hand. I assumed that you might be able to take my views on personal responsability and extend them to include the man. I don't think I need to explain everything after explaining my views, do you? Perhaps you can do a little filling in between the lines for the sake of time?

Yes, if you can't tell the difference between people who have signed up for the armed forces in this country and a child that has no say in the matter then this discussion is useless. People have choices. If they choose to join the armed forces, (nobody has been drafted) then they choose to give up their say in the matter of what war they fight. They are given orders, they obey. If they are against killing people, or are against war, or whatever, they don't have to join up.

And I don't think Bush is callous in regards to human life. I think that its an awful thing to say he is. I don't remember Bush gloating over the deaths of our men over there, or making light of it. Certainly, he isn't the most sobering president at all times, he's no Coolidge thats for sure and for certain, but I have never seen him be anything but serious when it deals with our men and uniform and what they are sacrificing.

Even if he wasn't, it doesn't really matter, I haven't voted for the guy, nor do I plan to, doesn't mean I think he's "pure evil" like some people obviously do.

Quote:
SignyM Your ignorance is showing. out of an approximately 700-person sample of the 60,000 registrations on the Florida "scrub list" only 5% (yes, FIVE PERCENT) could be validated as being ex-felons not allowed to vote. Even the contractor who generated that list warned Katherine Harris that her instructions created far too broad a list, and says that it was intended to have more names on it than actually belonged there. Chew on that one for a bit.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0527-03.htm

While a serious problem, no doubt, it is not nearly as cut and dry as you make it, nor do your numbers seem to pan out. Nor does it seem to be some massive conspiracy to me.

I don't see 60,000 removed from the list, I see 19,398, I don't see that only 5% could be validated I see that 14,600 could be validated as felons, (at least by name, birthdate, and race and gender). I also see that the information was sent out and that the people had a chance to appeal.

Again, its not without its problems, but it does seem, at least from this report, that you are blowing things out of proportion. It also appears that counties did not HAVE to accept the list. (Which makes it seem less and less like a conspiracy to me.)

Chew on that for a bit.

Quote:

Actually JCobb, I think I hit the nail on the head. And I have about a zillion disagreements with your last statement, but I'll try to pare it down.

Oh, good, anything else you would like to inform me about myself? Perhaps my sexual preference? Maybe I have gotten that wrong all these years?

Quote:

Corporations are NOT individuals or even the aggregate of individual owners. Corporations have their own interests, their own lifespan, their own rights that are distinct and separate from- sometimes even contradicting- the rights of their owners and Board members. So- yes, corporations really ARE "faceless" and it IS possible to hate corporations and still appreciate people with drive and creativity.

I don't recall saying Corporations where individuals. Could you point to where I did say that? What I do recall saying is that corporations are MADE UP OF individuals. Doesn't seem like that contradicts much of what you said, does it? Furthermore, the faceless, *evil* coporations often do mroe good then you can ever imagine. I know many corporations give to a charity that I work for, tax relief, yes, but often "they" do it anonymously, and often without even asking for a reciept. Often times corporations make donations that aren't tax deductable, or exceed the limitations, and make physical donations that they don't need to make. So no, I don't view them as nameless or faceless evil entitites, nor am I slaved to them. I work for a small business headed by one man.

Quote:

People don't "have" rights. Rights are granted to them by the government and by the set of laws that we agree to live by. Even to so-called "free market" is sustained by law.

I beg to differ. People do have rights. Rights guarenteed to me by my constitution. unalienable, God given rights. Among these are, "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Hapiness."

These rights aren't, according to my government, given to me by government. According to MY government these are my rights, and they are given to me by Nature, and Nature's God.

Doesn't seem that hard to understand to me.

Quote:

Corporations don't "employ" people. Corporations actually cause unemployment.

Erm...

Huh?

Care to elaborate?

Quote:

SignyM Sorry, but taking a swipe at someone and them telling them "it's a joke" just doesn't cut it.

Ah, so you don't like being told things about yourself that aren't true? Fancy that! So... maybe one can extrapolate that you don't think thats a good way of doing things? Well, maybe you will think about that in the future before you go off and make your assumptions.

And take it how you will. I clearly said it was a joke. And it wasn't even directed at you.

Quote:

You are so incensed over Moore's lies, so hate-filled toward anyone who doesn't agree with you.
I could substitute 'Bush' into many statements and they would be perfectly true. Why no outrage over Bush's lies, or those of anyone in his administration?

Incensed, perhaps. I hate to see people being mislead, though hate filled? I can't consider anything I have posted to be hate filled... I don't recall saying anything, (other then perhaps a few jokingly snide remarks) offensive, and if I did offend, I apologize. I don't know exactly where you get hate filled? Was I disapointed that people still were treating Moore like Jesus? Yeah, I think I was. Its obvious to anyone that has done any research that Moore is deceptive, and yet still people cling to him like a God.

As far as why I don't get so angry over Bush's lies, well, there are a few reasons for that, some obvious some not. One, I supported taking out Saddam, I have supported that since before 1990, I think we should have done it earlier, when we had the Troops down there and the chance.

I didn't need to be told there were WMD's there to realize that he is a threat to the region, and perhaps a threat to America.

Quote:

BTW, for someone who declaims about personal responsibility, you sure take an authoritarian approach to abortion. Are you a wannabe dictator over what people believe?

Am I a wannabe dictator? I wish! That would be great! But, what does this have to do with personal responsibility? I hold other people to the same standard of responsibility I hold myself to. Action/Reaction. If somebody has sex, they have a chance of getting pregnant. If I were in their position I would recognize that responsibility and take over whatever duties that entailed. I expect that of others to, just as you, no doubt, expect other drivers not to crash into you when you go for a drive. Furthermore, if maybe you would care to read my post I don't think I ever forced my opinion down on others. But, hey, whatever makes you sleep better at night Rue.

I don't care, I'm still free.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 24, 2004 5:21 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

It's not that you hold different standards, it's that you want to impose yours on others.

In Japan, abortion is OK, but birth control is not. Why? Well, if one is conceived only to be aborted, it must be b/c one earned some really bad karma in a previous life. But birth control stops the whole reincarnation cycle, which is a TRULY bad thing.

If my beliefs don't happen to coincide with yours (and it comes down to religion), why should the gummint be a tool for you to impose yours on me?

Current law derives from British common law, which said that until quickening (when the embryo makes itself known to third parties) pregnancy was a woman's private matter.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 24, 2004 6:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
It's not that you hold different standards, it's that you want to impose yours on others.

In Japan, abortion is OK, but birth control is not. Why? Well, if one is conceived only to be aborted, it must be b/c one earned some really bad karma in a previous life. But birth control stops the whole reincarnation cycle, which is a TRULY bad thing.

If my beliefs don't happen to coincide with yours (and it comes down to religion), why should the gummint be a tool for you to impose yours on me?

Current law derives from British common law, which said that until quickening (when the embryo makes itself known to third parties) pregnancy was a woman's private matter.

So...

Because I said..

"And he sees it as murder, I don't know if I disagree with Bush on this one. Like I said, I am a libertarian, I believe in personal accountability. When she had sex, (its PROCREATION FOR PETES SAKE) there was always the chance of her getting pregnant. When she did, she still has rights, but so does the unborn child within her. Action, reaction. She must be ready to accept the consequences of her actions. She can have as much freedom as she likes, but when it starts impeding on the child's rights, (LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of hapiness where the unalienable ones IIRC) she loses all rights as far as I am concerned."

Means that I want to force my will on others? Because I have a contrary opinion?

Wow.

Explain that one to me, again?

Just out of curiosity, why do you think the government should pass laws regarding murder and theft? Isn't that them just passing their own morality down onto you? What if one doesn't find murder or theft to be wrong?

I don't care, I'm still free.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 24, 2004 7:02 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Something can be completely accurately filmed, but not completely accurately shown. I can show excerpts of a film that can be misleading. All completely factual, and most of it terribly misleading. Hell, I might pull a Moore and just grab excerpts of speeches and then play them to make the people sound as bad as possible.

In other words, one can lie by fact selection as well as by fabrication. So, since the media's coverage of Bush didn't show ANYTHING negative (at least for the first three years) did they lie too?

Quote:
And not to defend Bush on this one, I believe in freedom of information, but there are certain extenuating circumstances that I understand might impact national security.

Oh yeah, like who formulated energy policy with Cheney.

Quote:
Maybe presidents haven't don't it by memo, but if you think its never happened before I do think you are fooling yourself.

The FOIA was passed in 1975 to attempt to reduce the abuses that happened before. Of course, Presidents have wiggled around it since then. But they have never been so overt as to memo it to all their staff.

Quote:
And I don't think Bush is callous in regards to human life.

Then you have never read a reporter's account of Bush mocking a prisoner's plea for clemency (reduce sentence to life in prison) or simply refusing to review ANY of the requests for clemency, even in the face of fabricated and perjured testimony.

http://friends.macjournals.com/mattd/discuss/msgReader$553

Quote:
While a serious problem, no doubt, it is not nearly as cut and dry as you make it, nor do your numbers seem to pan out. Nor does it seem to be some massive conspiracy to me. I don't see 60,000 removed from the list, I see 19,398, I don't see that only 5% could be validated I see that 14,600 could be validated as felons, (at least by name, birthdate, and race and gender)

The we have a case of dueling statistics. In this list of 57,000, there were many who were convicted of crimes some time in the FUTURE. Katherine Harris' response to the problem? BLANK screwy conviction dates! 4900 blank conviction dates were counted. DBT was also instructed not to verify the rolls against financial records or address histories, or by phoning police. At least 8000 false identifications are estimated, and 2800 were erroneously removed because their states allowed ex-felons to vote. (This was approved by Jeb Bush). "The one county that checked each of the 694 names on its local list could verify only 34 as actual felony convicts. Some counties defied Harris' directives; Madison County's elections supervisor Linda Howell refused the purge list after she found her own name on it."

http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=122&r
ow=1

Well, I've have to get to the rest later.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 24, 2004 8:19 PM

Fact: In the first little while the "baby" is just a pack of cells.

Is this a human life?
Strictly speaking I'd say no, but, at the same time I'd say that it has a high probability to *become* a human life. *When* it does become a human life is *highly* debatable.

So, then what do we call abortion?
Clearly removing the fetus from the womb is an abortion and the right or wrong of the matter is again *highly* debatable.

But, where is the line drawn?
Is the 72 hr pill an abortion, or, is that only reserved from the operation that removes a fetus and not a pack of cells?

Fact: May people consider abortion murder.

I don't know if I'd agree with this. First we must state when this pack of cells becomes a fetus then we can debate murder or not.

There is absolutely no way that anyone can say *when* a fetus is a person, period. It's all just opinion.

So, how can we be comfortable keeping abortion legal?
For you religious people out there, judging and punishment is Gods work not yours. This woman that has an abortion will have to live with that fact for the rest of her life (I don't think that'll be very easy for most) and then after that she'll (assuming God exists) will have to deal with it again at that moment.

So, all you bible people can rest assured that these people will get what's coming to them, right? Let's let God do the judging. Remember "judge not lest ye be judged". I think that's the right quote. Just let them burn

Basically, we can't really outlaw abortion. To do so is to tramp on the rights of the individual that think it's a right to do so. Since we live in a world of separation of church and state the views of the religious right don't really carry weight as there are those secular people that still want it.

Also, if you outlaw abortion then those operations *will* just go into the back alleys. And that's just the place you don't want them.

For the record, I'm personally against abortion. It may have to do with the fact that I was adopted, but, I also think that I shouldn't intrude on the rights of others. After all, they're the ones that'll have to live with themselves afterwards, eh.

I also know that this is a huge partisan issue and will never come to a resolution. Since there are always going to be people for and against, I believe that it never should be made illegal as that'll cause more problems than it'll solve (see above).

Anyway, I've brought up some more issues, so, if people really want to debate this further I'd suggest creating another thread for it (this is *way* to OT) and post the link to it here so people don't continue it here. That is all.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 24, 2004 8:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

Well, I've have to get to the rest later.

Quote:

In other words, one can lie by fact selection as well as by fabrication. So, since the media's coverage of Bush didn't show ANYTHING negative (at least for the first three years) did they lie too?

Just what media did you listen too? I heard plenty of negative things.

Maybe you just weren't listening?

Quote:

The FOIA was passed in 1975 to attempt to reduce the abuses that happened before. Of course, Presidents have wiggled around it since then. But they have never been so overt as to memo it to all their staff.

So because he was honest about his lying he's somehow worse?

Like I said, how does this change anything I have posted?

Quote:

Then you have never read a reporter's account of Bush mocking a prisoner's plea for clemency (reduce sentence to life in prison) or simply refusing to review ANY of the requests for clemency, even in the face of fabricated and perjured testimony.

...

I hardly think a convicted criminal being sentenced to death being "mocked" is equatable to human life. As soon as you kill another, or commit some other heinous crime, are convicted by a jury of your peers, probably isn't a person who practiced being humane. This doesn't rub me the wrong way at all. Now, that said, I don't agree with Bush's decision, nessecarily, but I don't trust the source for being an unbiased one.

I have very little tolerance for murderers, rapists, and the like. My compassion only goes so far, and that is probably my greatest flaw.

And yet that doesn't even BEGIN to compare with Troops in Iraq. I am sure even you can recognize that.

Quote:

The we have a case of dueling statistics. In this list of 57,000, there were many who were convicted of crimes some time in the FUTURE. Katherine Harris' response to the problem? BLANK screwy conviction dates! 4900 blank conviction dates were counted. DBT was also instructed not to verify the rolls against financial records or address histories, or by phoning police. At least 8000 false identifications are estimated, and 2800 were erroneously removed because their states allowed ex-felons to vote. (This was approved by Jeb Bush). "The one county that checked each of the 694 names on its local list could verify only 34 as actual felony convicts. Some counties defied Harris' directives; Madison County's elections supervisor Linda Howell refused the purge list after she found her own name on it."

I think I am going to stick with mine, thank you. Also, you seem to forget that this wasn't some directive, this was an option for the counties to decide on.

"With that in mind, officials in 20 counties rejected the list. Others felt pressure to use it because of Miami's dubious legacy."

They didn't have to use the list, obviously.

I don't care, I'm still free.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 24, 2004 8:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:

Below

Quote:

Fact: In the first little while the "baby" is just a pack of cells.

And...?
The cells are no less alive in my opinion.

Quote:

For you religious people out there, judging and punishment is Gods work not yours. This woman that has an abortion will have to live with that fact for the rest of her life (I don't think that'll be very easy for most) and then after that she'll (assuming God exists) will have to deal with it again at that moment.

And murderers and thieves also have to deal with this.

God also says to obey the laws of man, if these laws are moral. I agree completely with "Judge not lest ye be judged," regardless of God's existance, that said, when you infringe on the right of another human being, (read fetus, pack of cells, baby, what ever semantics you care to attach to him/her).

Quote:

do so is to tramp on the rights of the individual

And to kill, (based purely on opinion) a child in the womb that can not speak for itself is somehow not infringing on rights?

Quote:

Also, if you outlaw abortion then those operations *will* just go into the back alleys. And that's just the place you don't want them.

And if you outlaw murder then, *shock* murder will still occur. Does that mean that we should legalize murder?

If you outlaw theft, theft will still happen.
Should we legalize thievery?

If you outlaw rape, rape will still happen.
Should we legalize rape?

Resorting to catering to the lowest common denominators so everyone fits under the umbrella of law isn't the answer, in my opinion. That said I don't know if a girl getting a abortion is comparable to murder. Just trying to illustrate a point.

Quote:

I also think that I shouldn't intrude on the rights of others.

Amen. I completely agree. I just want to know who speaks up for the rights of the unborn child. If there is even the slightest chance of the child being "alive," (not nessecarily conscious) then I think that they need a voice.

Quote:
Anyway, I've brought up some more issues, so, if people really want to debate this further I'd suggest creating another thread for it (this is *way* to OT) and post the link to it here so people don't continue it here. That is all.

I think I've said my piece.

I don't care, I'm still free.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 24, 2004 11:05 PM

Ok. This is my last post on the matter and then I'll be quiet and get back to the topic too. I'm sorry for taking us way off topic.

Quote:
Originally posted by JCobb:
@ Heb

As far as rape is concerned, I think thats a much more gray area. I wouldn't say one way or the other, but I would hope that a woman would have the bravery and courage to give birth, and if nothing else put the baby up for adoption to the thousands of couples that can not have children. Now, such courage and bravery is rare, not because women are cowards, but because, as I understand it from talking and listening to victims of rape, it can be one of the most horrible things I can ever imagine. It would just be so difficult, (and maybe courage and bravery aren't the right words to describe the women that decide not to get an abortion) to go through the entire pregnancy being reminded of the ordeal.

Anyways, good post, bud, I hope my raving "right wing" speak doesn't scare you off.

I don't care, I'm still free.

I can see your point about continuing the pregnancy for couples who can't have children. But as in my opinion the foetus is still not a conscious living thing and hence not a baby - this is almost equivalent to saying that women should all go out and get pregnant and be surrogate mothers for these couples. Whilst being a surrogate mother is an admirable thing to do it is not something that we would expect regular people to go out and do. In my opinion there is a point where the foetus isn't a 'baby'. You made a point about the packet of cells still being alive but it seems to me only equivalently alive as any other single (or packet of cells) celled organisms. For it to be considered human rather than alive it has to have consciousness, significant brain activity etc. in my opinion.

I guess the whole argument really rests on whether the foetus is considered a baby or not. I can see for people who consider it a baby that abortion would be equivalent to murder but I really don't think that it is.

Ok that's it I'm done. I'm not looking to start up the argument again when you were done - like I said I do see your point. Sorry it's just an issue I feel quite strongly on. Back to the topic...

I will be going to see the film but I will try and take in my 'sceptical hat' with me.

heb

ps. edited to say I forgot to say thanks for the reply and that it takes more than someone presenting a rational political argument to scare me off (..Reavers might).

Well, my sister's a ship... we had a
complicated childhood

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 25, 2004 12:09 AM

ELFRENETICO

Hey Browncoats,

It’s good to read y’all.

“Way it is is the way it is. We got to deal with what's in front of us.”-Capt. Mal

I saw the new film yesterday in NYC & Moore was getting interviewed outside the theater after. He is a really, really, REALLY fat guy. He should diet. He encourages people to research this stuff for themselves. Why would he do that?

If you have already done the research, this new film merely puts all the information in order from Moore's admittedly biased perspective. If you don't know the facts he covers, you will be shocked and appalled. After that you can decide to love Moore as a truth teller or hate him as a muckraker. Either way, you owe it to yourself, you family, your country and “The Earth that was” to find out the facts for yourself. “Getting paranoid and crotchety is a sign of space dementia.”

You can check the facts on all his films from his site or other places on line. He admits his bias, unlike some others who give us "news". These are scary times so one of the patriotic thing we can all do is watch Fox News, CNN, BBC and all the network news as well as read conservative & liberal papers and watch documentaries on both sides of the huge issues of the day. Only in this way can you call yourself informed.

For those who won't see the movie because they've read that it is full of false hoods, you are buying a lot of hype. Who ever is elected, there may have to be a draft soon (men and women drafted this time) and since much of the world doesn't trust America anymore, the least we can do is listen to all sides. "May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 25, 2004 3:57 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I hardly think a convicted criminal being sentenced to death being "mocked" is equatable to human life. As soon as you kill another, or commit some other heinous crime, are convicted by a jury of your peers, probably isn't a person who practiced being humane. This doesn't rub me the wrong way at all. Now, that said, I don't agree with Bush's decision, nessecarily, but I don't trust the source for being an unbiased one.

So, some people are more "human" than others? Some lives are more equal than others? Tell me why.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 25, 2004 4:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

So, some people are more "human" than others? Some lives are more equal than others? Tell me why.

Yep, exactly. As soon as you commit a crime that gets you judged by a jury of your peers, (again, thats not to say there aren't innocent people on Death Row that deserve a second chance) to be guilty of a crime, that is nearly equatable, to me anyways, as a loss of humanity.

It is my beliefs that once a person commits as heinous a crime that they forfit much, if not all of their rights as a human being. (Again, you might differ with me, thats fine.) I have no problem with forgiveness, and if the family of the victim wishes to have the sentence of death changed to one of life in prison, or what have you, thats one thing, but under my personal philosophy, and my beliefs, if you commit a crime you are responsible for it. If I murdered somebody I would like to think that I would be willing to accept the penalty, regardless of its severity.

Again, these are just my personal beliefs.

Oh, and Heb, sounds great, and I agree with you on most of it. It does come down to your beliefs, and I just happen to believe a baby is a baby, regardless. I understand not everybody does.

I don't care, I'm still free.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 25, 2004 5:22 AM

I think to end this off, I'll bring up the one point that everyone has mentioned in pass but not actually address.

Q: Is that pack of cells a baby?
A: The answer to this is an *opinion*. *Nobody* knows. So, if someone has irrefutable evidence then I'd certainly like to see it.

JCobb:
All the situations that you mentioned above have the very distinct characteristic that people never really disagree that they are crimes. They are a given that you shouldn't do those things.

It *is silly* to compare them to this situation as this one is quite a grey area. And that is the reason why you can't use them.

So, before anyone goes off to say right or wrong, legal or illegal, if this discussion isn't going to continue on its current partisan path, then we must *first* address that question above supported with evidence not a book of fiction (read: bible).

And that's my piece... unless someone starts a thread.

p.s. I just woke up so if I sound incoherent or pissy, sorry.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 25, 2004 5:38 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
I think to end this off, I'll bring up the one point that everyone has mentioned in pass but not actually address.

Q: Is that pack of cells a baby?
A: The answer to this is an *opinion*. *Nobody* knows. So, if someone has irrefutable evidence then I'd certainly like to see it.

or the question might be:
Why *Isn't* a pack of cells a baby.

I would like to see irrefutable evidence to proof it either way as it is. The problem is that it's the same issue on faith and moralistic principles. One is based on faith (that book of fiction) and its own set of principles and rules, whereas the science (requiring the rigor, evidence and proof) requires its own set of faith and principles.

What I want to see is the incontrovertible proof that murder, rape, stealing are all "wrong". If there is no proof, but simply just accepted standards, then why do we all (ok, some majority of us) agree to live by them and to codify them into our existence.

BTW: I am by no means religious (in any faith, except the Religion of Me[tm][sm] ) at all. Some would even call me a person with complete lack of morals and faith - as evident on a bunch of other threads. But I am just wondering about the elevating of the western art of logic and proof - and the comparative need to bash the faith of Religion.

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:

JCobb:
All the situations that you mentioned above have the very distinct characteristic that people never really disagree that they are crimes. They are a given that you shouldn't do those things.

It *is silly* to compare them to this situation as this one is quite a grey area. And that is the reason why you can't use them.

So, before anyone goes off to say right or wrong, legal or illegal, if this discussion isn't going to continue on its current partisan path, then we must *first* address that question above supported with evidence not a book of fiction (read: bible).

And that's my piece... unless someone starts a thread.

p.s. I just woke up so if I sound incoherent or pissy, sorry.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 25, 2004 5:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:

Below

Quote:

Q: Is that pack of cells a baby?
A: The answer to this is an *opinion*. *Nobody* knows. So, if someone has irrefutable evidence then I'd certainly like to see it.

Show me where I have said otherwise.

Quote:

All the situations that you mentioned above have the very distinct characteristic that people never really disagree that they are crimes. They are a given that you shouldn't do those things.

And about a hundred years ago I think most anyone would've agreed that abortion, would have been a crime. It was a given then that you shouldn't do it, (though it still happened, in one form or another, for one reason or another).

Quote:

So, before anyone goes off to say right or wrong, legal or illegal, if this discussion isn't going to continue on its current partisan path, then we must *first* address that question above supported with evidence not a book of fiction (read: bible).

I never mentioned religion, or the Bible until it was mentioned by somebody else. You, if I am not mistaken. Also, why the jab at religion? I am fairly agnostic, but how exactly do you get off calling it a work of fiction?

Why this paragraph was adressed at me... I will never know.

Anyways, no prob, as you said you just woke up, I've had a few hours headstart on yah bud.

Fair 'nuff regarding ending the convo. (Though I do enjoy a friendly discussion.)

I don't care, I'm still free.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 25, 2004 5:43 AM

KASUO

I've only heard of MM supposed manipulation through film exploits but I'm deathly curious to see how he's going to present the connections between the Bush family and the Saudis. If anything else, it should be entertaining.

I mean after all, he did make Canadian Bacon..

________
"Let's moon 'em!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 25, 2004 8:03 AM

XITHOR

I saw it last night at a midnight show here in Portland.

I won't get into the Moore:good/Moore:evil debate, but I will say that it very effectivly stirs up the coals for those of us that were aginst the war and Gee-Dubbia's Asinine international policy for corperate profit from the get go.

Everyone should go see it; those of us on the left get to have our fire stoked up (and perhaps pluck at our guilt a bit), and those on the right might find it an interesting view from the other side - and maybe change your mind on some things.

Additional note to all Teenagers: go see it now! Sneak in, get your weird Uncle Steve to go with you, or just walk up and buy tickets (- they oh so rarely check). Pay special attention to the scenes where they follow a pair of unscrupulous Marine recruiters, vist US soldiers who have had their limbs blown off, and show the greif of a mother of a US Soldier killed in action.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 25, 2004 8:40 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
I think to end this off, I'll bring up the one point that everyone has mentioned in pass but not actually address.

Q: Is that pack of cells a baby?
A: The answer to this is an *opinion*. *Nobody* knows. So, if someone has irrefutable evidence then I'd certainly like to see it.

Unless I misunderstood I think me and JCOBB had actually come to a final understanding regarding that point:

Me:

Quote:

I guess the whole argument really rests on whether the foetus is considered a baby or not. I can see for people who consider it a baby that abortion would be equivalent to murder but I really don't think that it is.

JCOBB:

Quote:
.
Oh, and Heb, sounds great, and I agree with you on most of it. It does come down to your beliefs, and I just happen to believe a baby is a baby, regardless. I understand not everybody does.

So I think all three of us have basically come to an agreement of some fashion.

And in a way that kind of is on topic for the issue of Michael Moore and political debates...

Can you believe I have to wait until like the 6th of July to see the movie over here. I'd better not have to wait that long for Serenity after the U.S. ...two weeks wait would kill me.

keep flyin' both of you.
heb

Well, my sister's a ship... we had a
complicated childhood

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 25, 2004 9:25 AM

ARAWAEN

Quote:
SigmaNunki wrote:
Friday, June 25, 2004 05:22
I think to end this off, I'll bring up the one point that everyone has mentioned in pass but not actually address.

Q: Is that pack of cells a baby?
A: The answer to this is an *opinion*. *Nobody* knows. So, if someone has irrefutable evidence then I'd certainly like to see it.

Pretty much all life on earth can be described as a pack of cells (except single-celled critters), even those of us 'persons' walking and talking. There has been debate throughout the ages who does and does not get the classification of 'person', irrefutable proof lacking in all cases.

Some people mark personhood as beginning at conception, others at birth. Some choose several days after birth and others several years. Some people believe it is inalienable, others think that accident, disease or age can strip a person of it. Some still consider gender, race or ethnicity an obstacle to it.

I can see many sides to the argument, some I understand and some I find detestable, but the one that strikes me as horribly wrong is the suggestion that my (or any other person's) desire for or against someone or the subject's convenience or lack thereof can have any bearing on whether they are or are not a person.

IMO: I find it preferable to be as inclusive as possible. Not only so that I will not find myself left out, but because if I call a thing a person and treat it as a person, no harm done; but if I call a person a thing and treat him (or her) as a thing, it strikes me that much harm has been done.

Arawaen

Um, I'm lost. Uh, I'm Angry. And I'm Armed.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 25, 2004 10:05 AM

Jasonzzz:
You didn't address the question. The fact remains that the issue brought up is still an issue. ie no-one knows.

The only "proof" that any of us can pose that anything is wrong is that people and there respective religions have deemed certain things wrong and there isn't any question about it. ie stealing is universally accepted as wrong. On the other hand abortion has never been universally accepted as wrong, maybe officially, but *never* practically.

I never bashed religion, merely stated a fact. If you read that into what I typed then that's all it is. What I was trying to state - being half awake as I was - was that in a multicultural society you can't take what one religion says as law. You must consider all of them or none. So, since we have separation of church and state, we'll have to go with the latter.

JCobb:
Never said that you stated that anybody knew that that pack of cells was a baby. I was only re-iterating the fundamental issue of the discussion that should be addressed first.

I am just finishing up course on Magic of ancient Greece and Rome (~500 BCE - ~500 CE) and this of course came up as there were "magic" abortive spells/drugs (there really wasn't a distinction of the two back then). Basically, it is that the official stance was that it was illegal. *But*, these laws where made by the ruling elite and by no means did they ask the people what they wanted. Clearly the people wanted the choice as these spells/drugs where around and used.

I brought up religion because most use it as a reason for being against abortion and as such there should be a law against it as well. I was merely attempting head those people off at the pass before this went there. I also think that by saying "anyone" it wasn't necessarily directed at you but to the general audience. ie Just because you get the message that I responded to your post doesn't mean I directed it (all or part) to you. It just means that yours was the last I read.

I can "get off" calling it a work of fiction because I've read a history book. The bible was *not* written by god, it *was written by man*, period. History *will* back me up on this one. That being said I will state that it *is* a wonderful book to learn values life lessons, *but*, one must take the prejudices out as there are many in there. But, that is another issue. I will refer you to "Why Christianity Must Change or Die" by Bishop John Shelby Spong.

Heb:
I just saw a commercial for F 9/11 (Canada) and it said playing in theaters now and all theaters July 2. Where are you?

Arawaen:
Thank you, you bring up very good points about the non-triviality of this issue. Though I don't exactly agree with the implication that you make you bring the issues of contention up well.

*wipes sweat from brow from typing just a damn long post*
Hopefully we can put this to bed soon

To be On Topic for a moment. Can't wait for July 2nd

EDIT: I find it fascinating that a discussion about abortion attracts only a few people, but, bring up religion and within hours I get 6 responses in my inbox.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 25, 2004 10:23 AM

Quote:
Heb:
I just saw a commercial for F 9/11 (Canada) and it said playing in theaters now and all theaters July 2. Where are you?

Thanks but no such luck. I'm in the UK. We have to wait ages for everything but not as long as some places thankfully. Still thinking of selling my soul for a simultaneous release date for Serenity (or a return plane ticket).

Well, my sister's a ship... we had a
complicated childhood

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 25, 2004 10:37 AM

ARAWAEN

Like both JCobb and SignyM I didn't vote for Gore or Bush and it can be assured I will not be voting 'republicrat' in the coming election either.

Quote:
People don't "have" rights. Rights are granted to them by the government and by the set of laws that we agree to live by.

Going to have to disagree with SignyM on this one. Rights are inherent, not granted by men or governments. They can be protected or violated by those individuals, but not given or taken away.

I cannot remember the exact quote from "A Man for All Seasons," but paraphrasing, Sir Thomas Moore says that some men say the world is round, and some men say the world is flat. But if it is round can an act of parliament make it flat? And if it is flat can an act of parliament make it round?

Likewise a government can say a 'negro' or 'indian' is not a person and can then later reverse itself and say they are, but it doesn't change the truth of the situation. The government's recognition of rights does not bring them into existance but affirms its position to protect those rights.

Quote:
I love the hatred of the "faceless" corporation. Damn those bastards! Damn the ones that seek to achieve something with their lives, to reach out and grab that American Dream! Damn them from employing Americans, for giving them work, for giving them benefits! Those bastards!

Company's are made up of individuals. Individuals have rights.

I have to disagree with JCobb on this one. Aristotle noted two kinds of business: 1) Earning a living, which is noble and honorable, as all people have needs to sustain themselves. 2) Earning a profit, of which there is nothing honorable to it, as it seeks to satisfy an insatiable appetite.

Corporations may be made up of individuals but they are not individuals. The interests of most of a corporations' members are denied a voice and they are reduced to the status of tools, a 'human resource' that is little more than a cog in the machine. The compensation that will no doubt be trumpeted as making this arrangment justifiable is not unlike the compensation given slaves who must trust in their masters to make decisions on their behalf. Workers have the right to vote and hence have a voice you say, true, but the corporate voice is so much louder (and made so by the very sweat of the workers). The worker makes the corporation powerful just as the slave made the plantation productive in return for the basic necessities of life and a few amenities.

Before I am accused of being a communist, let me say that I am a strong supporter of private property and small business. A man should be able to better himself with his own effort. I don't like corporations because I see a small group of people (and don't even get me started on the investors) profiting from the work of others. I believe freedom is diminished when the means of production is consolidated into the hands of a few.

The current (or eternal) trend of 'one dollar, one vote' which drives our special interest political travesty highlights what is so wrong with large corporations, they have assets to speak with a large voice for a minority of people. [bold] Corporations being an example of special interest, not the totality of it.[/bold]

I am probably rambling by now and if so I apologize. I just wanted to respond to things that bothered me in the above posts.

Arawaen

Um, I'm lost. Uh, I'm Angry. And I'm Armed.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 25, 2004 12:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Xithor:
I saw it last night at a midnight show here in Portland.

I won't get into the Moore:good/Moore:evil debate, but I will say that it very effectivly stirs up the coals for those of us that were aginst the war and Gee-Dubbia's Asinine international policy for corperate profit from the get go.

Everyone should go see it; those of us on the left get to have our fire stoked up (and perhaps pluck at our guilt a bit), and those on the right might find it an interesting view from the other side - and maybe change your mind on some things.

Additional note to all Teenagers: go see it now! Sneak in, get your weird Uncle Steve to go with you, or just walk up and buy tickets (- they oh so rarely check). Pay special attention to the scenes where they follow a pair of unscrupulous Marine recruiters, vist US soldiers who have had their limbs blown off, and show the greif of a mother of a US Soldier killed in action.

I think all you 17 years olds should take your video cameras and see if Moore will actually make good on his word on taking you-all into the movie himself (After the MPAA passed an R rating on the film, he said that he would take every 17 year old into the film himself)... Whether he does or not is irrelevant. The next thing you ought to do is heavily edit the footage of your encounter with him and make him look like as much of an ass as possible. One good turn deserves another.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 25, 2004 2:12 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Jasonzz- have you seen the movie? If not, don't pass judgement. There are ways of making people look awkward, clumsy, stupid and backward. If that's what this film does to George, then I wouldn't much care for it. It would be a mean-spirited but trivial put-down. But if it makes SIGNIFICANT points by showing revealing and extended quotes then it's a meaningful observation. The only thing showing in your post is YOUR mean-spiritedness. Go see the film, then come back and tell us about it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 25, 2004 3:22 PM

Ur, I would just assume that I can pass judgement
on this very same movie from having seen most of
the previous ones that he had put out. MM has
only one way of putting his work together, thru
quick edits of his interviews. I've to admit
that his stuff is funny and entertaining. He has
a good way of putting people in his particular
perspective and making them look like baffoons - that is no matter how they've tried to be honest. I am not passing judgement on how honest or dis-honest (in absolute terms that is; IMHO, only Mother Teresa and Gandhi are absolutely bleached sheets white honest, everyone else are certain shades of grey and filthy dirt as measured and compared on) the people he interviewed is.

And just taking your cue, how can it be *mean-spirited* when it's the truth? That's been MM's modus operanti and it's quite apparent that it hasn't changed. So, it's the truth and I stated it for what it is.

I'm just saying that using the techniques that MM uses, one can make the Dalai Lama look like he ate a dog and then lied about it knowing full well that he didn't. And having read the reviews, this movie would be about the same sort of treatment. It might be entertaining, but he isn't saying anything new. The stuff that he is "documenting" has been out in the news in the past - the stuff with Bin Laden and the Saudi family were out within months post September 2001.

I will prolly see it when I have an late evening with a spare $0.97 that isn't quite doing anything else and neither am I. Maybe when I am just completely bored out of my mind and sorely need an external source of entertainment, but that likely won't be until sometime at the end of the year.
The rental counters will prolly have it out in the cheap bin by then.

What do you think of MM's other works? Is his technique a good way to deliver the truth? Or is it just an entertaining way to mock and deliver satire?

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Jasonzz- have you seen the movie? If not, don't pass judgement. There are ways of making people look awkward, clumsy, stupid and backward. If that's what this film does to George, then I wouldn't much care for it. It would be a mean-spirited but trivial put-down. But if it makes SIGNIFICANT points by showing revealing and extended quotes then it's a meaningful observation. The only thing showing in your post is YOUR mean-spiritedness. Go see the film, then come back and tell us about it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 25, 2004 3:34 PM

I'm more than certain you can find it
streaming in the web somewhere. If you
feel guilty about it, you can go to the
theatre and pay for some other random
Miramax movie and just chuck the ticket.

Quote:
Originally posted by heb:
Quote:
Heb:
I just saw a commercial for F 9/11 (Canada) and it said playing in theaters now and all theaters July 2. Where are you?

Thanks but no such luck. I'm in the UK. We have to wait ages for everything but not as long as some places thankfully. Still thinking of selling my soul for a simultaneous release date for Serenity (or a return plane ticket).

Well, my sister's a ship... we had a
complicated childhood

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 25, 2004 5:47 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I believe in personal accountability. When she had sex, (its PROCREATION FOR PETE'S SAKE) there was always the chance of her getting pregnant. When she did, she still has rights, ** but so does the unborn child within her **

It's your OPINION that pregnancy = legal personhood, but that doesn't make it so. Others can have strict personal accountability and the highest standards, just not yours.

There was a lot of personal mud-slinging between the religious framers of the Constitution and the atheists, but generally they tried to create a social framework based on the 'Natural Rights of Man' (according to Western thinking of the time). They wanted to avoid theocracy. At the time I'm sure they weren't considering how Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, Rastafarians, Confucians etc might fit. But there was so much European bloodshed over the centuries between different New Testament followers, that the framers avoided religious government. They created a civil one.

For centuries nobility was always concerned with offspring and parentage. It wouldn't do to have a queen (whose job was to bear sons) sneaking off to the local herbalist when she was pregnant. So nobility was governed by one set of rules. But for commoners succession wasn't an issue (so to speak), and they were governed by the 'common law'.

British common law was adopted as American common law. 'Quickening' became the American standard.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 25, 2004 7:11 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
And just taking your cue, how can it be *mean-spirited* when it's the truth? That's been MM's modus operanti and it's quite apparent that it hasn't changed. So, it's the truth and I stated it for what it is.

And yet, everyone is saying how DIFFERENT this is from his usual work. So again, you're not "telling the truth" you're stating your uninformed opinion.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 25, 2004 7:38 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

JCOBB

Quote:
Yep, exactly. As soon as you commit a crime that gets you judged by a jury of your peers, (again, thats not to say there aren't innocent people on Death Row that deserve a second chance) to be guilty of a crime, that is nearly equatable, to me anyways, as a loss of humanity.

It is my beliefs that once a person commits as heinous a crime that they forfit much, if not all of their rights as a human being. (Again, you might differ with me, thats fine.) I have no problem with forgiveness, and if the family of the victim wishes to have the sentence of death changed to one of life in prison, or what have you, thats one thing, but under my personal philosophy, and my beliefs, if you commit a crime you are responsible for it. If I murdered somebody I would like to think that I would be willing to accept the penalty, regardless of its severity.

So, are you saying that those who make a choice to commit a crime should take responsibility for their choice? What about people who have limited capacity to choose- schizophrenics, mentally retarded, children? Would you extend that to people who are severely depressed, brain injured, socially isolated, brought up in other cultures?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 25, 2004 11:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:

I'm more than certain you can find it
streaming in the web somewhere. If you
feel guilty about it, you can go to the
theatre and pay for some other random
Miramax movie and just chuck the ticket.

Would you like to try and persuade my parents to get broadband? I've been trying since our town could get it last August but no such luck so far. Apparently we might be finally getting it after my exams but I doubt they'll ever get round to it. I've offered to pay for it, sort out the phone line - do everything and they're still being funny about it. Thanks for the suggestion though but I don't think I'd stand a chance of downloading it before the end of the universe at the speed of my connection.

Well, my sister's a ship... we had a
complicated childhood

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 26, 2004 4:44 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
And just taking your cue, how can it be *mean-spirited* when it's the truth? That's been MM's modus operanti and it's quite apparent that it hasn't changed. So, it's the truth and I stated it for what it is.

And yet, everyone is saying how DIFFERENT this is from his usual work. So again, you're not "telling the truth" you're stating your uninformed opinion.

And you have seen all of his other works including this one to be able to judge that it's different?
Where are these people who say that MM has filmed this one differently or used a completely different editing or story telling style? I have read 20 reviews so far from prominent movie reviewers who have included bits of the theme, the editing style, as well as his story telling style within the review. I've read them and found the material to be substantially the same as what he has done before. None of the reviewers noted with any special deference that MM has deviated from his earlier work in style or substance. In fact, quite a few of them notes the same.

So, before you give me your very much *uninformed opionion* of what I am saying, go and look at his earlier works and actually read some of these background material. In addition, backup your statements with the appropriate references so I can find out what you mean by DIFFERENT. Either that, or if you yourself thinks that it is so substantially different, tell me what you think (or what you've read ) that is so DIFFERENT? Has he managed himself away from the quick cut chop chop "mockumentary" style of editing and story telling? Does he no longer provide footages of road side waylaying "famous and important" people? Has he stopped harassing the common folk with his uncommon wit (remember the bunny lady)? Give me something to hang a hat on

Again, to have an equal and informed discussion, we need the same material on both sides. So, once you have seen the other MM works, let me know what you think. Again I pose the questions.

What do you think of MM's other works? Is his technique a good way to deliver the truth? Or is it just an entertaining way to mock and deliver satire?

Just so that there isn't any misconceptions as to where I am coming from.

I don't happen to like Dubya very much, he doesn't have a very charismatic personality, he isn't a terrible public speaker (for god's sake, he can't even read a prepared speech with some oomph, gusto, or conviction).

I like MM's movie for their entertainment value. I just don't like his pushing it as a documentary, and his way of waylaying people and editing out real footages to tell a complete slant of the story. The uninformed might actually take a lot of this for granted and will very likely not be able to separate the facts from fiction from purely MM's opinion and worst his slant.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 26, 2004 4:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
JCOBB

Quote:
Yep, exactly. As soon as you commit a crime that gets you judged by a jury of your peers, (again, thats not to say there aren't innocent people on Death Row that deserve a second chance) to be guilty of a crime, that is nearly equatable, to me anyways, as a loss of humanity.

It is my beliefs that once a person commits as heinous a crime that they forfit much, if not all of their rights as a human being. (Again, you might differ with me, thats fine.) I have no problem with forgiveness, and if the family of the victim wishes to have the sentence of death changed to one of life in prison, or what have you, thats one thing, but under my personal philosophy, and my beliefs, if you commit a crime you are responsible for it. If I murdered somebody I would like to think that I would be willing to accept the penalty, regardless of its severity.

So, are you saying that those who make a choice to commit a crime should take responsibility for their choice? What about people who have limited capacity to choose- schizophrenics, mentally retarded, children? Would you extend that to people who are severely depressed, brain injured, socially isolated, brought up in other cultures?

eh, what's the differece between a non-functional human animal who doesn't know to stop themselves from a violent crime than a rabid dog? Absolutely nothing! I agree that it's much more difficult to resist anthropomorphizing an animal that has four limbs and actually stand upright and looks like the rest of us human beings - as compared to a wild animal, or farm animals and pets (when we are constantly bombarded by the media, the world full of pet lovers, and freakin' talking bears, dogs, cats, cows, and what noughts in Disney films). But at some point, even if you look like a human being, if you don't or can't behave like one, you are just an animal who happen to be using the wrong shell - and we ought not to afford them any better treatment than a rabid dog if that's all they are.

How we treat rabid dogs is another discussion all together.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 26, 2004 5:10 AM

GHOULMAN

Quote:
Arawaen wrote:
Friday, June 25, 2004 10:37
Like both JCobb and SignyM I didn't vote for Gore or Bush and it can be assured I will not be voting 'republicrat' ...

lol!

Thaaaat's the best word describing the neocons yet! Cookies for you.

and... how did abortion get into this thread? I wonder... *chuckle*.

I feel little need to post as long as people with Arawaens' deep insight are around. And she knows her Aristotle! Ah the greeks, they invented that thing people on CNN keep refering too but never demonstrate... Dem, er,... cracies something... can't remember...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 26, 2004 5:27 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

What I've heard in just about every review so far is that stylistically there is very much less of Michael Moore's face on camera. This film is also more focused, more substantive, than his previous films.

I haven't seen ALL of his films. I saw "Roger and Me", "Bowling for Columbine", and bits snd pieces of "TV Nation". What MM does is street theater. Sometimes it's insightful, sometimes it's trivial, sometimes it's cheap shots.

But I've ALSO seen "Hearts and MInds", a stunning documentary about the Vietnam war, done with the same technique of using actual war footage, voiceovers from the military etc. It was a powerful film, a credit to the technique, and the standard against which I judge other advocate films. I intend to see F911 this Sunday.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 26, 2004 5:44 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
What I've heard in just about every review so far is that stylistically there is very much less of Michael Moore's face on camera. This film is also more focused, more substantive, than his previous films.

I haven't seen ALL of his films. I saw "Roger and Me", "Bowling for Columbine", and bits snd pieces of "TV Nation". What MM does is street theater. Sometimes it's insightful, sometimes it's trivial, sometimes it's cheap shots.

Good, then you agree that it's the same fluff and stuff, cut and paste, techniques; waylay, ambush tactics he uses.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

But I've ALSO seen "Hearts and MInds", a stunning documentary about the Vietnam war, done with the same technique of using actual war footage, voiceovers from the military etc. It was a powerful film, a credit to the technique, and the standard against which I judge other advocate films. I intend to see F911 this Sunday.

Ah, "advocate films", to persuade, to sway the public opinion. A legitimate followup question then, when do they stop being propaganda? Where is the line drawn between advocating & selling and straight into slants and outright lies?

"Hearts and Minds" is not MM, and not done by him. I think you do Peter Davis a great disservice by lumping MM with him. There are these "advocate films", then there are lies and slants like MM, and then there are Nazi made documentary war-machine propaganda movies.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 26, 2004 9:01 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Good, then you agree that it's the same fluff and stuff, cut and paste, techniques; waylay, ambush tactics he uses.

Jasonzz, how can I possibly make myself clearer? I don't know that it's the same stuff because I haven't seen it. YOU don't know that it's the same stuff either. All I was trying to say was that I have a basis for comparison. When I have seen it, then I will let you know.

Quote:
Ah, "advocate films", to persuade, to sway the public opinion. A legitimate followup question then, when do they stop being propaganda? Where is the line drawn between advocating & selling and straight into slants and outright lies?

I know many will disagree with me, but ALL art is propaganda.

BTW- have you actually seen "Hearts and Minds"?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 27, 2004 10:52 AM

Quote:
I can "get off" calling it a work of fiction because I've read a history book. The bible was *not* written by god, it *was written by man*, period. History *will* back me up on this one. That being said I will state that it *is* a wonderful book to learn values life lessons, *but*, one must take the prejudices out as there are many in there. But, that is another issue. I will refer you to "Why Christianity Must Change or Die" by Bishop John Shelby Spong.

Sorry, I've never understood the Bible to be written by God, nor have I understood the claim to be such. The Gospel according to Paul, Letters to the Corinthians, etc... I think the question you should be asking yourself is if you can prove these men weren't influenced by God, (which of course you can not, just as one can't prove that they were).

Quote:

Never said that you stated that anybody knew that that pack of cells was a baby. I was only re-iterating the fundamental issue of the discussion that should be addressed first.

This had been said time and time again during the course of the discussion, thus leaving me more then a little confused.

Quote:

have to disagree with JCobb on this one. Aristotle noted two kinds of business: 1) Earning a living, which is noble and honorable, as all people have needs to sustain themselves. 2) Earning a profit, of which there is nothing honorable to it, as it seeks to satisfy an insatiable appetite.

Not to take a plunge off the deep end, but I have to disagree with Aristotle here. The entire American dream is that one can come here and do more then just survive.. One can thrive. It is this ability, (or at least percieved ability) that draws so many people to America. People don't want to just "get by" they want to live comfortably. They want to know that their children can live better then they could, if they work and try hard enough. (Something I think you touched on later in your post.)

What I think of corporations is irrelevent. I don't think I should be able to have a say in their lives. It doesn't concern me, to be frank. Probably this is because I don't happen to work for a corporation, or have been mistreated by them in the past, but I am not going to lie about it. Like I've said, I have known coporations that have done wonders for the people around them. I know of those in the heirarchy of corporations that have done much good with their wealth. I know, for a fact, that they all aren't evil syccophants that care for nothing more then a quick buck.

Quote:

It's your OPINION that pregnancy = legal personhood, but that doesn't make it so. Others can have strict personal accountability and the highest standards, just not yours.

GOOD! Thanks for beating that dead horse again. Not to sound harsh, but welcome to the END of the discussion. I have said this in the past, about eight times by my recollection, in response to several peoples posts. In the future might you try reading the conversation before getting all riled up and leaping upon your high horse?

Quote:

British common law was adopted as American common law. 'Quickening' became the American standard.

So you are forcing that as my standard? I have to change my beliefs to fit in with the law? I am incapable of having different beliefs now?

Lovely. Come on Rue, let it go.

Quote:

So, are you saying that those who make a choice to commit a crime should take responsibility for their choice? What about people who have limited capacity to choose- schizophrenics, mentally retarded, children? Would you extend that to people who are severely depressed, brain injured, socially isolated, brought up in other cultures?

I would extend to them the same thoughtfulness the law did. I would assume that the guilty parties lawyer(s) would have brought up this point and, if after deliberating the case, the jury would have taken that into account (thus the "after being convicted of a crime and judged by a jury of their peers," portion of my post).

Sorry about the delayed reply, went out of town for a few days.

I don't care, I'm still free.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 27, 2004 12:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JCobb:
Quote:
I can "get off" calling it a work of fiction because I've read a history book. The bible was *not* written by god, it *was written by man*, period. History *will* back me up on this one. That being said I will state that it *is* a wonderful book to learn values life lessons, *but*, one must take the prejudices out as there are many in there. But, that is another issue. I will refer you to "Why Christianity Must Change or Die" by Bishop John Shelby Spong.

Sorry, I've never understood the Bible to be written by God, nor have I understood the claim to be such. The Gospel according to Paul, Letters to the Corinthians, etc... I think the question you should be asking yourself is if you can prove these men weren't influenced by God, (which of course you can not, just as one can't prove that they were).

I shouldn't be asking myself any question as I've already done so and have come to some conclusions, some of which I've shared.

Perhaps you should look into the *historical* making of the bible before you ask me to ask myself questions. I think you'll be quite suprised at how much BS actually went on in the making of that book. ie There are things you will find throughout history which make you "point" moot.

*sigh* back to work

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 27, 2004 12:34 PM

Okay, can you then explain to me where in the Bible it says it was written by God's own hand?

I have understood it to be written by those influenced by God, but nothing more then that.

I don't care, I'm still free.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 27, 2004 12:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JCobb:
Okay, can you then explain to me where in the Bible it says it was written by God's own hand?

I have understood it to be written by those influenced by God, but nothing more then that.

I don't care, I'm still free.

Why do you still harp on this one point. I never said that it itself stated that it was written by god. Though you'd be surprised how many people claim it. I'll now reference myself when I said I wanted to head people off at the pass before that happened. Let it go!

And your other statement is highly debatable as well you know.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 27, 2004 1:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Quote:
Originally posted by JCobb:
Okay, can you then explain to me where in the Bible it says it was written by God's own hand?

I have understood it to be written by those influenced by God, but nothing more then that.

I don't care, I'm still free.

Why do you still harp on this one point. I never said that it itself stated that it was written by god. Though you'd be surprised how many people claim it. I'll now reference myself when I said I wanted to head people off at the pass before that happened. Let it go!

And your other statement is highly debatable as well you know.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

Sorry, but let me see if I understand you correctly.

You can say its fiction because it isn't written directly by God?

Therfore, using your logic, all man's works must be fiction because it isn't written by God.

(I am sorry if I am harping, just trying to understand what, exactly, you are saying.)

My other statement isn't highly debatable at all. Those that I have talked to that believe the Bible to be gospel truth, have said to me that it was written by men that they believe were influenced by God. I don't know how you can debate what they believe, but meh.

As far as heading people off at the pass, what does that have to do with whether or not the Bible is fiction? If absolutely nothing else religion is a series of philosophies, no more crazy then many other *isms* out there.

Sorry, I don't want to piss you off or anything, just not really understanding your points.

I don't care, I'm still free.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 27, 2004 3:36 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Jasonzz- I saw the movie, and having seen two of his other films I can tell you it's very different from his previous films. For example "Bowling for Columbine" was a meandering movie with some interesting ideas (the culture of fear, profitability of gun-making, race relations in the USA, the influence of our arms industry) not really tied together or explored in any significant way.

"F 9-11" is a focused film, the content is meaningful, the quotes are NOT taken out of context. I saw only perhaps five minutes that I thought were trivial.

I strongly suggest that you see it if you haven't already. You can't possibly judge this film based on his previous work. I simply won't accept any second-hand opnions about this movie.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 27, 2004 7:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Jasonzz- I saw the movie, and having seen two of his other films I can tell you it's very different from his previous films. For example "Bowling for Columbine" was a meandering movie with some interesting ideas (the culture of fear, profitability of gun-making, race relations in the USA, the influence of our arms industry) not really tied together or explored in any significant way.

"F 9-11" is a focused film, the content is meaningful, the quotes are NOT taken out of context. I saw only perhaps five minutes that I thought were trivial.

I strongly suggest that you see it if you haven't already. You can't possibly judge this film based on his previous work. I simply won't accept any second-hand opnions about this movie.

Like I said *way way* before. I'll likely see it: when I absolutely have ran out of interesting things to do, but that will prolly be when it's rotting in the bottom of the $0.79 bin.

That's fine that you opin'ed/believed that it's focused, is different from what he has done before, and is worthwhile. And In absence of evidence of a through and convincing review that points to otherwise, I am inclined and happened to believe that it's not. I don't think any of the his other films were that focused or meandering either, they were just all a mish-mash of entertaining tidbits all strung together to take out-of-context quotes, manipulating historical timelines and bash certain figures and harass otherwise good honest people and make them look like asses.

Again like I said, nothing that I have read in the reviews so far gives me confidence that he is using anything other than his normal modus operanti as I've outlined above. If you can give me a more through, convincing review that he is not using that same bushwacking tactics as I've seen in his other films. I might change my mind yet. But to be fair, if either you or anyone else who have seen this film (and at least 2 of his other works) and can point out either similarities or big deviations from what MM normally does. Please keep posting.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 27, 2004 8:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JCobb:
Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Why do you still harp on this one point. I never said that it itself stated that it was written by god. Though you'd be surprised how many people claim it. I'll now reference myself when I said I wanted to head people off at the pass before that happened. Let it go!

And your other statement is highly debatable as well you know.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

Sorry, but let me see if I understand you correctly.

You can say its fiction because it isn't written directly by God?

Therfore, using your logic, all man's works must be fiction because it isn't written by God.

No, I say that it's a work of fiction because it doesn't depict actual historical events. Some may argue that it is based on historical events, but, we all have seen movies that have been based on actual events haven't we. They were changed so much so that they on resembled the original on some superficial level. Also, give the fact that the first book was written 40-50 years *after the death of Jesus* makes the likelyness of its acuracy questionable at best. ie Let's play telephone with 40 people and see how the story changes, never mind over 40 years. See the Spong book above for more details about this book. Never mind the manipulation that its undergone.

Quote:
Originally posted by JCobb:
My other statement isn't highly debatable at all. Those that I have talked to that believe the Bible to be gospel truth, have said to me that it was written by men that they believe were influenced by God. I don't know how you can debate what they believe, but meh.

Then if it isn't highly debatable, show me the proof that it was influenced by god. You can't and neither can I = matter of opinion/belief = highly debatable.

Quote:
Originally posted by JCobb:
As far as heading people off at the pass, what does that have to do with whether or not the Bible is fiction?

Works of fiction can't be used to support an argument. Well, at least in this case because of the supposedly secular society we live in. It's called seperation of church and state.

Perhaps you should look back at my previous post to get this in context.

I'm too tired right now to continue. If you want to continue this send me a message through the message function at my firefly page. I think that this is too far OT to continue here (let's spare everyone else).

http://www.fireflyfans.net/showprofile.asp?un=SigmaNunki

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 27, 2004 9:24 PM

We will just agree to disagree then. I think the Bible has shown a remarkable ability to remain "true" to itself throughout the years, (nevermind the prunings here and there) so I can't say I agree with your telephone comment, (people dedicated their entire life to the transcription and replication of the Bible for hundreds, if not thousands of years).

But, as you said, that is fairly OT, nor is it something I am too inclined to discuss, (I am fairly apathetic about the entire thing).

I don't care, I'm still free.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 29, 2004 8:55 PM