Re: Natsumi's Real "Equipment" (was Re: Found another Edit

Blade wrote:
Not that I'm going to get into this, or want to, however, two factual
notes.
"sanjian" <mungkb@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:fjoru2$nma$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
You mean the same Michael Moore who is constantly caught in the most
amazing of lies and deceptions? (pay no attention to the fact that
Heston has changed his tie during a speech, while we cut away for a
moment... no the cut wasn't to hide the fact that we've spliced two
speeches together to make it look like one). I guess you're right,
though, that Moore is a prominent

That's not a lie. It's an insinuation. Moore is making a political

It is a lie, Blade. Insinuating is stating things in such a way that they lead people to believe something that may or may not be true. However, what Moore did was splice two speeches together to make Heston say something he didn't say. The fact that it's video media blurs the line a bit, because there's not quotation marks around an inaccurate block of text. However, Moore presented something that he knew Heston did not say as if it was something he said. If one were to make a transcript, it would be all one speech. An intentional misquote. I'm thinking that is a lie.

documentary and it is to be expected that he provides a biased slant
on events to support his view. The fact some people are stupid enough
to think he'd be objective does not oblige him to be so. That his
stuff is very left-slanted is no more or less inherently heinous than
that Fox News is right-slanted; however, that does not mean as he
doesn't bring up interesting points. You cannot really aim for
objectivity and examining both (or more) sides at a leisurely pace in
the space of a documentary which is made with the purpose of
promoting a certain point of view, nor am I certain you should.

Actually, media research has shown that Fox is one of the most neutral of the large media outlets, though it does slant right, however less so than the other networks slant left. For Moore, you would have to go past Limbaugh, Hannity, or Boortz, and straight to Michael Savage, who scares the *** out of me.

What you call "every man for himself," I call the liberty we are
supposed to have as people. But, yeah... liberals have their hearts
in the right place. They keep people shackled to the government on
welfare. The support dictators like Chavez. They are ideological
heirs to a system that killed 100 MILLION people. They support
goons like Che and Mummia. They try to

Sanjian, kindly do not dare insinuate that the so-called-leftish
spectrum of belief, including and especially socialism, are
"idealogical heirs" to Communism (which in any case was not the
political system in the USSR). You should know better.

It would be interesting to have this conversation, because I do believe that it's a distinction without a difference. I've also known you long enough to know that you could probably give good reasons why you don't believe that to be the case, and that you might even be able to change my mind (both you and HR have done so in the past). However, others who have tried to argue that have failed. It comes down to what each person takes as the "essence" of each system. For me, it cuts across the collectivism/individualim axis.

You should also know better than to make blanket statements about what
"liberals" believe. What are you criticising Michael Moore for, again?

Fair enough. But you should also keep in mind my intention here. Watson has decided to make r.a.a.m. his political soapbox. All I'm asking for is the ability to read r.a.a.m. without the politics. You know I've taken a stance of not taking first political shots here. But Watson has taken a "I am right, so it's ok for me to interject my politics into the group approach." Short of adding him to my killfile, which I don't want to do because he also has interesting things to say that acutally IS on topic, this is all I can do. I can make it so troublesome for him to launch into his political diatribes that he decides to stop.

.