"You all look alike to me"!!!!!!
- Thread starter epicstruggle
- Start date
kyleb said:
Yeah, i left out his excuse for the quip being there in the first place, when infact we were discussing why it wasn't in the clip we saw. Maybe you should stop and ask yourself a major question: If not to convey an image of Heston why include these words?
Aside from that matter. Its a very weak excuse, especially wrt the mounting misrepresentation of Heston's speech and actions. He used Heston's "Cold Dead Hands" quip to convey an imagine. Material i mentioned in the last post you simply didn't respond to.
Heston either did or did not use his quip during the denver speech at the interval which Moore suggested. If he did not then the allegations stand firm that Moore was adding this statement in to mislead his viewers as to the intent of Heston's speech, which quite frankly follows suit with his doctoring of the rest of Heston's words.
Here is one rebuttle:
Needless to say Moore is just fabricating. Even if what he were saying was true he can't deny that added quip set the stage for his latter misrepresentations wrt to Heston.
-btw Here is a matter I forgot to address in my last post:
From Moore:
Heston's appearance in Flint was more than 8 months after the incident with Kayla Roland and was unrelated to the incident.
I am not implying he couldn't defend himself Ty. I am trying to get you to think about it. He would attempt to play subjective semantical games. Would it really be worth the NRA's time to take a libel/slander suit to court to prove Moore's work to be ficticious? Do you think Heston or the NRA intended for their words to be used out of context in such a fashion as was done with B4C?
Please do not tell me what everyone on the right thinks. You have no idea.
Again, are you implying that Moore's allegations are truthful based on the fact no one has taken Moore to court?
In your opinion is suppose. However my point rests. What barrings on Moore's honesty does a law suit play? He either is being honest or not regardless of a courts decision.
Are you disagreeing? The first statement suggests you didn't understand what i was posing you.
Legion said:
lol, sure. it can't possably be that the guy who wrote what you quoted wasn't paying attention and the NRA has been useing the slogan for decades.
Legion said:
i said "less than a year" in a perivous post; but obviously since it was nearly 4 months less than a year that makes it a wole new story.
He himself stated he couldn't find evidence to valid Moore's claims.
Here is his email (why not take the matter up with him):
dthardy@mindspring.com
You fail to see, in light of all the rest of Moore's misrepresentations of Heston Moore could simply be setting the stage for said misrepresentations with the quip. It was entirely unrelated to events in Columbine and its been entirely taken out of context. Moore himself admitts when intercut with the protestors Heston's appearance is not a positive one. This is of course by Moore's intention alone. I do not see why you continue to deny Moore had an intention to present Heston in a negative light by editing his speech.
i said "less than a year" in a perivous post; but obviously since it was nearly 4 months less than a year that makes it a wole new story.
What i was posting was concerning Moore's relation of Heston supposed negativity toward the people in Denvey to his appearance in Flint. Which isn't in the slightest bit true.
-btw Moore states it was the following year.
i stated it with stipulation:
when you base an agurment on a some random quote from some sorce you leave unacredited, then give simply give the guy's email address when the validity is brought into question, it is blatently obvious that facts are of little intrest to you.
kyleb said:
when you base an agurment on a some random quote from some sorce you leave unacredited, then give simply give the guy's email address when the validity is brought into question, it is blatently obvious that facts are of little intrest to you.
kyleb said:
My arguments are not based on random quotes from random places. The are based on a multitude of reason and facts concerning misrepresentations of people and events. I have substantiated my arguments without the turning to opinions or unsupported rants. What i have done is show, from Moore's own actions and words he is a liar without even the a base since of integrity.
I provided the man's email such that he himself could explain the reasoning behind his own words. Your apparenty unwillingness to take up your challenge speaks volumes concerning the significance of your argument. You stated Heston's phrase has been used for decades. This man disagrees and has his reasons. I certainly can not read his mind as to why but i am certainly inclined to believe him when he states he is telling the truth. Moore not even once provides for Heston using this phrase as often as he suggests. Infact the phrase was borrowed from a speech the following year, not any years before. Does Moore even provide examples in his own rebuttle?
Did the validity of his words ever come into question?
Here is what you stated:
Coupled with the multitude of examples of Moore misrepresenting Heston and Moore's own self indictments i see no reason to think Moore hadn't the intention to use the "cold dead hands" quip to present Heston in a negative fashion. Surely Moore could have used any number of phrases Heston has spoken in the past to introduce him, if that were his intention. Why did he choose these words? Especially in light of his wantingness to intercut Heston's words with the weepy crowds of Denver? He suggests Heston and the NRA hosted their meeting inspite of the suffering in Denver. This is just a flat out lie and Moore knows this. He doesn't even address the issue in his rebuttle. Moore has the nerve to compare Heston's actions in Flint to his fabrications wrt to Denver?
Seems to me my arguments are based on quite a bit more than one man's objection.
Legion said:
Deliberate misrepresentations is called slander. It's illegal. You can go to court with such a case.
I didn't imply that Bowling tells the truth. I just pointed out that if Moore were blatantly lying and producing demafatory statements we would know by now.
Cheers
Gubbi
In effect you are doing exactly what i stated you are. You suggesting if he were "blatantly lying" he would have been taken to court. Well, I can prove in many cases he WAS blatantly lying especially with regards to his portrayal of Heston's Denver and Flint meetings.
By your reasoning a crime would never exist if the criminal weren't ever taken to court
Why should I, because as we all know, the NRA is an outstretch of the KKK and all Moore stated abou them is inherently true! You know this! Hell they just went to denver to spite all those people. Same reason Heston went to Flint.
Don't need to. I am right on the mark. Your reasoning is ass backwards. You assert if Moore were wrong the NRA and Heston would sue. Moore's words are demonstratably wrong. His depictions of the NRA and Heston were flat out fabrications using words entirely out of context.
Your implication is a strawman. It has nothing to do with refutation nor does it have anything to do with the matter of Moore's words being correct. Some one could sue regardless of the truth behind the words. Your implication is simply a way of turning to a convient excuse to deny the obvious.
Legion said:
As oftentimes lawsuits come down to.
Legion said:
I think so, yes. Why not discredit his work if you have the chance?
Legion said:
Absolutely not which gives me reason to believe they would want to set the record straight. Note that I haven't watched it or any of his movies.
Legion said:
Alright I'll bite (since you're awfully sensitive to generalizations). Go ahead and tell us what everyone on the right thinks.
Legion said:
I did not say that and in fact explictly stated
Legion said:
Hence I stated it as opinion.
Legion said:
Absolutely agreed. The courts finding pro or con MM does not necessarily imply that he lied or told the truth and I never said otherwise.
Legion said:
Which statement exactly? "How would he defend himself"? I did not understand what you were trying to get at as your thought dropped off at the end there.