"Max Chuang" <mach@[nospam]csua.berkeley.edu> wrote in message
> In article <j_udnfA7X4pk7n7dRVnemail@example.com>,
> Charles Beauchamp <***@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote:
> >> And the film is Moore's viewpoint. But I guess since his viewpoint is
> >> distributed over a broader audience than most people, it qualifies as
> >> propaganda?
> >No. He fires of multiple misleading points. That is what makes it
> >propaganda. At least..everything that has been said about the content
> >me it is propaganda.
> >Frankly no one is disputing the comments regarding the
> >content...so all of you liberals that are saying ya but go see it are as
> >guilty as Mr. Moore of intentionally spreading propaganda.
> All what liberals? I'm certainly not one. On many issues, I'm
> conservative ... which is not to say Republican, since that party has
> long since abandoned true conservatism.
> >It is quite
> >telling to me anyways how so many of you folks in this here corner of
> >are willing to ok propaganda without really refuting the very misleading
> >nature of said propaganda simply because...you agree with that
> That brush big enough for you?
Interesting...there was no broad brush comment..."so many of you folks" is
not a broad brush at all..it is the opposite of a broad brush statement. It
is a very specific subset of the entire community commented on.
> > It can't just be a matter of manipulation, because lots
> >> of people discussing it around here gladly twist facts to suit their
> >> purposes.
> >So? Lot's of people in here are fans of various teams etc. That has
> >nothing to do with what I am talking about though.
> I don't know what, "in here," means to you, but in asbnll political
> discussion has become par for the course.
in here...meaning...the 3 newsgroups that are listed up there in the
header....see em? Up there..top of the screen?
> >> If I read the Cliff Notes to a book, and I go to a book discussion,
> >> I would definitely say I was in the dark even though I might know the
> >> bare bones idea of the thing, and maybe even know enough to bluff my
> >> way through it like I knew what I was talking about.
> >While that may be true, it has zero to do with anything I am talking
> Not with what you're talking about, specifically, but you're not the
> center of this thread, and things go off on tangents sometimes.
Yes and the world turns, but since you are replying to what I am saying it
would maybe be good to stay on subject at least a little.
> >> Yes, when presented with something you don't like, just cover your
> >> eyes and ears and pretend it didn't happen. Hey, I was as surprised
> >> as anyone at the Monday night crowd.
> >No, when presented with something that hasn't got anything to do with the
> >point being made... that is stated as if it is relevant.....I address it
> You've talked about how this film has such a limited audience. That
> has nothing to do with the validity of the film, oh but when you want
> to talk about something else it's not irrelevant. But then when
> I mention attendance at the theater, it is irrelevant. Hypocrite.
I am not a hypocrite. It is entirely consistent for me to say the film has
a limited audience...and that your commenting on how at a particular theatre
the crowd overflowed is irrelevant. In fact they are inclusive statements.
The audience attracted to this film will overwhelmingly be fans of the
material being presented. They are a small group. How is a comment about
how there were a lot of people at a particular theater address my comments
about the points being made by the film maker? In a couple nights you will
likely see an overflow crowd at theaters around the nation for Spiderman 2.
> >It has nothing to do with my agreement or disagreement...my
> >like or dislike. Big freaking deal..there was a big Monday night crowd.
> >So? There are a lot of left wing Bush haters in the vicinity of the
> >you went to. Color me stunned.
> Why is that? I live in a pretty conservative neighborhood, actually.
So? Again....how many people does it take to fill up a theater?
> >The cash flow of the film is impressive sorta...it was pretty much
> >Put Spiderman 2 on 1000 screens this weekend and it would sell out 99% of
> >the showings. That gross by F911 is all nice and good, it is certainly a
> >commercial success all things considered. I don't really see what that
> >to do with what I am commenting on regarding points Mr. Moore is trying
> It has to do with discussion of impact. Which you've happily participated
> in, but somehow when you don't like the facts you label it irrelevant.
Impact? The impact will be non-existent. The only people tending to agree
with Mr. Moore's points..agreed when they went into the theater. You have
said not a single thing that indicates anything about impact. Your only
offering was that there were a lot of people at the theater. A few weeks
ago I wasted a couple hours and $5.00 to go see New York get hit by a Tidal
Wave in the Day After Tomorrow...it was overtly preachy...overtly political
in it's Global Warming stuff...a month later...I know of no person who came
to a belief in the goofy science mentioned in the film. I know a lot of
folks that remember the cool 40 minute long action sequence that takes up
about the first half of the movie.
> >> >If the swing is influenced via lies then there is something wrong with
> >> You mean like when all politicians lie?
> >No, I mean exactly what I said.
> Doesn't matter where the lies come from. Sorry to tell you this, but
> most of what comes from both sides is lies, especially when they think
> it'll get votes (and it does).
I really don't care about that as regards what I am talking about here. I
am refuting points that the film maker apparently has tried to make.
> >> Didn't say it wasn't wrong, but
> >> it's the truth ... people will be swayed by this film. I don't even
> >> why you'd dispute this, regardless of your position on Bush.
> >I don't recall mentioning whether or not it would swing anyone. Frankly
> >doubt a movie by a known propagandist will have any real effect on the
> >voting public.
> That might be the case if the voting public were smart. But that's
> not the case.
Case in point...folks that believe the left wing propaganda that Mr. Moore
> > The folks that are jumping up and down in praise of the film
> >almost all seem to have the same viewpoint going in as they do coming
> >And you can all cite some mysterious "staunch Republican" whose mind was
> >changed etc...I will simply call BS on that.
> Again, it's the middle group that counts. And they have no reason
> not to see the film.
You are correct. The middle 15% or so are going to decide the election.
Um...they need to know the truth. The President was not on vacation 42% of
his first 8 months in office. Halliburton/KBR in fact has NOT gotten a "no
bid" contract in Iraq to provide logistical support to troops. There have
been a total of NO persons of interest listed among the 142 folks that flew
out of the country in those mysterious flights that were not very mysterious
in the days following 9/11.
> > Topical
> >> fiction > News. It's been that way throughout history. Just look at
> >> way Shakespeare influenced the way people think of Richard III (and
> >> still does).
> >More comments on stuff that has nothing to do with what you are replying
> Actually, it has everything to do with how this film will be accepted.
> Shakespeare's Richard III was nothing more than propaganda ... yet
> if you ask most people what they know of the actual king, it's
> Shakespeare's portrayal that has persisted. Same with William Randolph
> Hearst and Citizen Kane. I don't see why this film will be any
> different, and I hate to break this to you, but the truthfulness (or
> lack thereof) will have little bearing on how well it convinces people
> that what is presented is true.
I have no doubt about the power of propaganda. Which is why I and others
are speaking up about the nonsensical points Mr. Moore apparently has tried
to dupe the public into thinking. Fortunately not many people in the end
will actually go to watch this movie.