Re: guns (vastly off-topic) was government milk

[Guest guest]

From: Heidi Schuppenhauer -- : I agree. I did see Bowling for Columbine,

and enjoyed it very much! -- Heidi

ditto..!

Dedy

[Guest guest]

From: Heidi Schuppenhauer -- : I agree. I did see Bowling for Columbine,

and enjoyed it very much! -- Heidi

ditto..! Dedy

PS -- rephrase -- 'enjoyed it in a kind of horrified way'..:-)

Dedy

[Guest guest]

is a tremendous liar who distorted and made up most of his

" facts " for Bowling For Columbine. You may have enjoyed it but it should

have been in the fiction category because it was not a documentary.

Documentaries should be at least partly accurate. His film was not. When

called on his fabrications, he never denied anything and justified his lies

because " the end justifies the means. "

>From: Heidi Schuppenhauer -- : I agree. I did see Bowling for

>Columbine, and enjoyed it very much! -- Heidi

>

>

>ditto..!

>

>Dedy

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

-

This is not true. In point of fact, on his website and elsewhere, he

addresses entire laundry lists of charges made against " Bowling For

Columbine " and provides abundant proof supporting his position. Other

people have done the same.

>When

>called on his fabrications, he never denied anything and justified his lies

>because " the end justifies the means. "

-

[Guest guest]

He did an interview where he was asked point blank about the lies. He never

denied it and tried to justify it. He never came right out and admitted it

either. His movie has been thoroughly debunked a number of times and it is

mostly lies and distortions. There is abundant evidence to prove it. I

don't know about what's on his website but I seriously doubt it's " abundant

proof. " His supporters and those that support his far left agenda will

believe him. Others (including me) will believe his detractors.

I will give one example. He shows a speech made by Charlton Heston in the

film. He gives the impression purposely that it's one continuous speech

made at the same location at the same time. In reality (and this is easily

proven) it's several speeches edited together to make it sound like Heston

said and meant something that he didn't say or mean. If that's not a lie or

a distortion, what is? He can't justify doing that. Watch it again. Heston

isn't even wearing the same clothes throughout that clip.

If you choose to believe him, that's your business. But he is a liar who

will stoop to any depths to promote his agenda and beliefs. His films and

books are full of lies. That's my story and if I met him, if he told me his

name was , I'd believe it. Everything else that came out of

his mouth, I'd have to check on first. There's nothing wrong with having an

agenda and a belief system and I don't begrudge him that. But he doesn't

let facts and truth stand in his way. I met a guy who went to high school

with and, according to him, was a big liar in school also. I

think there's plenty of evidence to support that conclusion. Believe what

you choose to believe. I'll do the same but I won't discuss this anymore as

it will get neither of us anywhere.

>-

>

>This is not true. In point of fact, on his website and elsewhere, he

>addresses entire laundry lists of charges made against " Bowling For

>Columbine " and provides abundant proof supporting his position. Other

>people have done the same.

>

> >When

> >called on his fabrications, he never denied anything and justified his lies

> >because " the end justifies the means. "

>

>

>

>-

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

-

>His movie has been thoroughly debunked a number of times and it is

>mostly lies and distortions.

I'm sorry, but that's factually incorrect. Though the film is, like I

said, imperfect, the vast majority of its alleged inaccuracies are in fact

completely accurate.

>I will give one example. He shows a speech made by Charlton Heston in the

>film. He gives the impression purposely that it's one continuous speech

>made at the same location at the same time. In reality (and this is easily

>proven) it's several speeches edited together to make it sound like Heston

>said and meant something that he didn't say or mean. If that's not a lie or

>a distortion, what is? He can't justify doing that. Watch it again. Heston

>isn't even wearing the same clothes throughout that clip.

Yes, this is a commonly-cited " distortion " , but it's anything but.

used a standard film and TV technique of introducing someone with a clip so

that audience members know who's being shown and discussed -- in this case,

Heston delivering his signature line about his cold, dead fingers -- and

then went on to show Heston delivering _one_ speech in _one_ place at _one_

time. You'll find that technique in the evening news, on " 60 Minutes " ,

PBS, The History Channel, and everywhere else.

This, BTW, is representative of quality of the claims that the film was

full of lies.

-

[Guest guest]

Long wrote:

> I will give one example. He shows a speech made by Charlton Heston in

> the film. He gives the impression purposely that it's one continuous

> speech made at the same location at the same time. In reality (and

> this is easily proven) it's several speeches edited together to make

> it sound like Heston said and meant something that he didn't say or

> mean. If that's not a lie or a distortion, what is? He can't justify

> doing that. Watch it again. Heston isn't even wearing the same

> clothes throughout that clip.

I haven't seen the movie, but if he wasn't wearing the same clothes

throughout the clip, is it possible that this was intended purely for

comedic effect and not to deceive? As I understand it, is really

more a comedian than anything else, and I've heard that there was also a

scene in which he was given a gun for signing up for a bank account, and

I don't see how anyone with half a brain could believe that that was

real.

[Guest guest]

From: Berg -- << I'm glad it turned out well, but for future reference,

resisting an attacker who is armed with a gun, even if you have a gun yourself,

is very dangerous.>>

~~~~ so the point of having a gun in the first place is..?

Dedy

[Guest guest]

-

>and I've heard that there was also a

>scene in which he was given a gun for signing up for a bank account, and

>I don't see how anyone with half a brain could believe that that was

>real.

That appears to have been genuine. The bank doesn't deny it was offering a

gun for people signing up to get accounts, and on camera they just gave him

the gun (it's been awhile since I saw the movie, so I'm fuzzy on some of

the details now) but later, when it brewed into a scandal, the bank started

insisting that actually, customers only get a gun after some kind of

waiting period, and they made an exception for . I haven't followed

this up in depth, but has insisted he's offered all the proof

necessary to show that he was treated as any other customer would've been

-- the complete unedited tapes of the encounter.

-