It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Michael Moore DID NOT admit to publicity stunt

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 8 2004 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by John Nada

Originally posted by junglejake
2? Bowling for Columbine, The Awful Truth, Roger & Me, The Big One, Dude, where's my Country...There are far more (Moore?
) then two.


The Awful Truth was a TV series. Dude Where's my Country was a book and The Big One was produced by the BBC and shown on TV here first, hence it not being eligible for a film.


The only other one is Canadian Bacon which was a John Candy comedy not a satirical political documentary, hence it not really being relevent here. Thanks for thinking that a book of his was a film though, you've basically proved my point for me.


Ahh, it came up on Amazon.com's DVD search. HAven't read or seen it, so I won't say that was one of those among my resume. However, I find it interesting that you posted this about 30 mintues after I edited my post to explain what I meant about movie (I said film in the post, but reread what I said just now, I said movie, not film) I consider the family guy episode I'm watching right now (Mr. Saturday Knight) a movie since I've got it on a DVD. Had I been watching it on TV, that would be different.

But I guess I did prove your point, I'm an unintelligent, ignorant liar since I disagree with you




posted on May, 8 2004 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by worldwatcher
deny my ignorance in this please, tell me why I should care.

[Edited on 5-8-2004 by worldwatcher]


Because although most Republicans claim he's full of # and his words are not worth the paper they are printed on, whenever he is remotely mentioned they come scurrying out from under their rocks to tear him apart.
Strange behaviour from people who say we should just ignore him don't you think? This hypocritical behaviour is hilarious and I love to watch them contradict themselves, because although they claim he should be ignored they find are unable to do so themselves.


The reason I remotely care is because all behaviour like this should be observed, mainly to show their true nature and of course the humorous aspect of it.



posted on May, 8 2004 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by John Nada
Because although most Republicans claim he's full of # and his words are not worth the paper they are printed on, whenever he is remotely mentioned they come scurrying out from under their rocks to tear him apart.
Strange behaviour from people who say we should just ignore him don't you think? This hypocritical behaviour is hilarious and I love to watch them contradict themselves, because although they claim he should be ignored they find are unable to do so themselves.


The reason I remotely care is because all behaviour like this should be observed, mainly to show their true nature and of course the humorous aspect of it.


Dang...So you don't think his misleading the public was bad? Hmm...You probably think Kerry should be president despite his admitted war crime attrocities and Rumsfeld should resign for 7 of his 140,000 troops doing the same thing Kerry did, abuse people.

Now, I am not a republican, I'm a conservative, so this doesn't break the mold, but I enjoy Michael Moore. I own and have watched Bowling for Columbine several times. I like reading what he has to say as well. He makes some great points that warrent investigation. To silence or ignore him would be to deny inteligence on the part of the individual. However, I do think, in this situation, he was dead wrong.



posted on May, 8 2004 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
But I guess I did prove your point, I'm an unintelligent, ignorant liar since I disagree with you


That was the worst attempt at side-stepping I've ever seen in my life, but God does love a tryer.


As for this "edit" you refer to like I was trying to trick you some how. I'm sorry to disappoint you but I don't hang on your every word and reread your posts like you're Shakespeare or someone. You made the original post and that is the one that I read and responded to. If you can't make your initial points in your first post that's your problem and not mine, and you shouldn't be expecting me to hold your hand and look for your mistakes.


Trying to hold me accountable to your mistakes is hilarious, and the fact that you actually expect me to reread your posts is egotistical AND hilarious.



posted on May, 8 2004 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
Dang...So you don't think his misleading the public was bad? Hmm...You probably think Kerry should be president despite his admitted war crime attrocities and Rumsfeld should resign for 7 of his 140,000 troops doing the same thing Kerry did, abuse people.


Assumptions, assumptions. You obviously didn't read my earlier post, nor do I see what John Kerry has got to do with this. Oh, I see, you mean you've actually been proved wrong on this subject so you have to stretch to another one to save face? Understandable, but I bad attempt. *shakes head*


Originally posted by junglejake
Now, I am not a republican, I'm a conservative, so this doesn't break the mold, but I enjoy Michael Moore. I own and have watched Bowling for Columbine several times. I like reading what he has to say as well. He makes some great points that warrent investigation. To silence or ignore him would be to deny inteligence on the part of the individual. However, I do think, in this situation, he was dead wrong.


Hmmm...ok, this is basically the same point I made with my first post in this thread, and now you're using it as an argument against me?

Obviously you didn't read it, you're wasting my time.

Good day to you sir.



posted on May, 8 2004 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by John Nada

Originally posted by junglejake
But I guess I did prove your point, I'm an unintelligent, ignorant liar since I disagree with you


That was the worst attempt at side-stepping I've ever seen in my life, but God does love a tryer.


As for this "edit" you refer to like I was trying to trick you some how. I'm sorry to disappoint you but I don't hang on your every word and reread your posts like you're Shakespeare or someone. You made the original post and that is the one that I read and responded to. If you can't make your initial points in your first post that's your problem and not mine, and you shouldn't be expecting me to hold your hand and look for your mistakes.


Trying to hold me accountable to your mistakes is hilarious, and the fact that you actually expect me to reread your posts is egotistical AND hilarious.


I said a half hour before your post showed up. If it took you that long to read and respond, then I'm sorry. I edited my post immediatelly after I posted it because I addressed one issue, and didn't address another. It clearly says "Edit 2:" in it. my point was, assuming it didn't take you a half hour to read 2 posts, that it had already been edited when you read it. As for side stepping...Well, whatever. I believe that's how you see me in your eyes. And I did address your issues in my post, that was the final one I addressed. Deal with it as you will.

I'll ask you again, though, what are your thoughts on Kerry and Rumsfeld? U2U me if you'd like, I'd like to know



posted on May, 8 2004 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
I said a half hour before your post showed up. If it took you that long to read and respond, then I'm sorry.


I read your remarks then I wrote half my response, went for something to eat, came back and finished it. Would you like to know what I had to eat as well? I could also give you a urine sample if it's absolutely necessary?
Anyway, apology accepted.


Originally posted by junglejake
I'll ask you again, though, what are your thoughts on Kerry and Rumsfeld? U2U me if you'd like, I'd like to know


Ok two things here. My thoughts on Kerry and Rumsfeld are well documented on this site so use the search function if it's that important to you, it's very handy. I'm not in the habit of repeating myself, especially to points I've already made over a dozen times. Do some research and use the search if you really care.

Second point...errr...wrong thread bud!!!

[Edited on 8-5-2004 by John Nada]



posted on May, 8 2004 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by romantico
I have read every comment here about Moore not to mention things said about him on other message boards. I always believed its best to debate with the intention to learn,not to prove who's right or wrong & I am proud to say I have learned alot from many people whom disgaree with me & I them. Okay, so CBS & NBC aren't really considered media
Uh, yeah. Right.Okay. I suppose I should be watching Fox & listening to Rush & Hannity. I suppose other than ATS I should also be checking out Worldnetdaily,Drudge, & Newsmax too huh. I surf around.I know what sites lean to the left & what sites lean to the left.The same when watching the nightly news.I go all over the place.I don't think most intelligent people get their news from just one news source.They shop around.My point is, no one has go forward as of yet with this story.It isn't on Reiters or Yahoo or the Associated Press.Michael Moore hasn't released a statement saying what you claim & I've even gone to several movie sites where politics isn't even a factor.Nothing.




Romantico, what?
What, you arguing word semantics now?
I will again refer to what I said before in Post Number: 518264. It doesn't matter if he "actually", "word-for-word" said that he was pulling a publicity (PR) stunt!
It was implied.
The man voices and then gets it put in the paper that he was being being denied his freedom of speech and political censorship, yet fails to mention, for which he does the NEXT day, that Disney pulled the plug on his fat ass a year plus prior to him even thinking of releasing F911. His admission of such lead to the headlines reading "he admits...."

Yep, in a technical sense, you are correct, in the bigger meaning of the word, you are wrong. It was implied.
Moore continue's his trail of Lies by then proclaiming that he and DIsney had signed a contract that would allow for distribution of this film/documentary.

Again, it was a lie, more PR dude....and thats simply what it was. Well, how so? Because Disney says the contract did not cover distribution BUT ONLY covered the making of the film,(ie: the financing). Miramax confirms this also. The 'laughing fat-man,' who whistles to the bank with yours and others monies is a freakin' queen of PR manipulation and a notorious liar. The New York Times prints his BS and doesn't even confirm the story. Cracker-Jack Box journalism!


This recent incident proves only that. Any real critical fan of his work would question his crediability, all except those fanatical believers of his BS hype. Just ask Larry Elders.

Personally, you argue semantics when some of us know otherwise. Whether he said those words verbatim is cleverly meaningless, we all understand or understood what he was doing......PR stunt!




seekerof



posted on May, 8 2004 @ 02:54 PM
link   
Oh, and sorry to rub it in JJ but a movie/film(in the motion picture sense) means the same thing, and a movie is only a movie when it is shown theatrically i.e. in the cinema first. Otherwise it's just a TV show, so you editing your posts to cover your arse from film to movie doesn't do squat, and your Family Guy analogy is dead wrong. It was humorous though, thanks.



posted on May, 8 2004 @ 02:55 PM
link   
This is Moore's response from his webpage HERE.
I just had to post it since it seems people are too lazy to actually look for truth. Corporate America, Disney, played you guys good. They gave you a line, and you swallowed it. I would feel ashamed if I was gullible enough to let Disney pull my strings.


The Disney spin machine has been working overtime dealing with this censorship debacle of theirs. I don't think they thought they would ever be outed. After all, they know that all of us are supposed to adhere to the unwritten Hollywood Code: Never tell the public how business is done here, never let them have a peek at the man behind the curtain.



But Michael Eisner did not call Miramax and tell them to stop my film. Not only that, for the next year, SIX MILLION dollars of DISNEY money continued to flow into the production of making my movie. Miramax assured me that there were no distribution problems with my film.



"Mr. Moore is doing this as a publicity stunt." Michael Eisner reportedly said this the other day while he was at a publicity stunt cutting the ribbon for the new "Tower of Terror" ride (what a pleasant name considering what the country has gone through recently) at Disney's California Adventure Park. Let me tell you something: NO filmmaker wants to go through this kind of controversy. It does NOT sell tickets (I can cite many examples of movies who have had to change distributors at the last minute and all have failed). I made this movie so people could see it as soon as possible. This is a huge and unwanted distraction. I want people discussing the issues raised in my film, not some inside Hollywood fracas surrounding who is going to ship the prints to the theaters. Plus, I think it is fairly safe to say that Fahrenheit 9/11 has a good chance of doing just fine, considering that my last movie set a box office record and the subject matter (Bush, the War on Terror, the War in Iraq) is at the forefront of most people's minds.

[Edited on 8-5-2004 by curme]



posted on May, 8 2004 @ 03:07 PM
link   
Yeah...of course...more Disney 'spin'.....
Accordingly, during an interview with CNN, Moore admits that he, MM, knew that Disney had no intentions of distributing his film/documentary?!
Michael Moore admits Disney 'ban' was a stunt

Let me see here, MMoore knew that Disney and Miramax had no intentions of distributing his film/documentary, for a year plus and yet, now wants to cry foul, cry political censorship. and cry restriction of freedom of speech and information?!?
Yeah, fat-boy knew what he was doing. He figured he'd keep taking their financial aid and then once completed, turn it into a PR fiasco, hopefully to his advantage, and to those who support, that "whooper" was swallowed whole.





seekerof



posted on May, 8 2004 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by John Nada
I read your remarks then I wrote half my response, went for something to eat, came back and finished it. Would you like to know what I had to eat as well? I could also give you a urine sample if it's absolutely necessary?
Anyway, apology accepted.


lol Actually, yes, I'd like to know what you ate! Being an avid follower of the food network and Iron Chef in particular, I love to find new recipies and foods to eat


EDIT: Oh, but you can keep your urine, I'm not interested in that
As to the termanology of movie/film, sorry. I didn't know hollywood's definition, I only knew my own conception.

[Edited on 5-8-2004 by junglejake]



posted on May, 8 2004 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
lol Actually, yes, I'd like to know what you ate! Being an avid follower of the food network and Iron Chef in particular, I love to find new recipies and foods to eat


EDIT: Oh, but you can keep your urine, I'm not interested in that
As to the termanology of movie/film, sorry. I didn't know hollywood's definition, I only knew my own conception.


That was a very gracious response there JJ, thank you.


I think a few others around here could learn a thing or two from your response here, it hasn't belittled you but made you a bigger man in my eyes. Some around here don't see it that way though. It's really not that hard is it?

Again I say thank you.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join