ToadMan

Are you sure Kwas? I saw plenty of congressmen running away from Moore in that movie. I'm pretty sure that Moore would be willing to enter into such a debate. I mean the guy went to Carlton Heston's house and asked him why he was an insensitive asshole. The guy is the biggest proponent of personal firearms in america, so really pissing him off could be a bad idea. I will admit that Moore likely didn't choose that approach. I would assert that he felt all he would get from those people is right wing rhetoric. So all he ended up with was left wing rhetoric. It's unfortunate really. Peace

I was asked to sign a petition to end gambling in my city... I didn't but they managed to get on the public ballot, and won... so now our casino can't buy land, nor expand. This is derailing so I will desist. Peace

I'm only going to bash this point one more time: How could he have shown the other side? who was really going to sit down and present the opposing facts to him? By definition it's not a documentary. It would more accurately described as an editorial. The movie clearly presents an edited view of facts. I personally don't have a problem with this kind of editorial presentation. I find it to be a refreshing contrast to the existing presentation of facts. We only get a problem when the editorial and the news are both presenting the same thing. Peace

Tell me how he could have presented the other side? Who could he has interviewed who would have talked to him? Peace

True. But when all other sources produce one side's propaganda, then it would seem appropriate to produce opposing propaganda. Unfortunately I can't see a way that Fahrenheit 9/11 could have been made with out it being leftist propaganda. I think Moore took the approach of "The media is telling this side, so I will tell the other". It's vicious, but when the news media is pandering to a political agenda, how do you address the issue from a central view? How do you tell the rounded story? Do you think that Moore would have got an interview with somebody who could have explained some of the facts Moore presented. When I say that I mean things such as: the report given to Bush in late August warning him that there was an inevitable terrorist attack on American soil; the reason Bush made no action to leave his PR stint to address what had happened (on Sept. 11th). I'm not looking for answers here. I'm just making the point that it's doubtful anybody would have answered these questions for Moore. I will admit that I have heard rumours that Moore talked to a congress-man who did have a child in the armed forces. If that is true, I am disappointed that he choose to cut this fact from the movie. However, I didn't hear this from a credible source. Peace

Ok, Maverick stop being a jerk. Your just trying to push buttons, and it shall stop now. Peace

Sorry... I'm slow. Peace

You want it, so here it is: (NWS) http://www.matthewgood.org/mblog/IMGP2574.JPG Peace

This is about Matt's comments... the other is about the fair itself. Peace

Those shoes are cool... Micro-controller actuated suspension. Peace

I created the thread, it's in open discussion. "Call" Peace

:angry: There is a difference between censoring, and preventing freedom of speech. At no time has a post ever been removed, nor a member banned for there opinion. Vulgarity, and the uses of language beyond that which is clearly stated in the rules, will be censored. We don't prevent freedom of speech. To the contrary, the moderators act as a filter. We remove that which is not necessary. That which is plainly offensive and rude. That which has no value beyond that to annoy and enrage. We do not censor ideas, thoughts expressions. We do not cookie cutter mold people to have certain ideas and view points. I know all of the moderators, I talk to them all on a regular basis. They are all enlightened, intelligent people. There purpose here is not to destroy free thought, but to promote it. Only by removing the smut can that be accomplished. If you believe that posting of off colour comments and other such annoyance is your "right to free speech" then you are obviously mistaken as to its definition. Many people have died for free speech, and I do not believe they fought so ferociously so that people could post verbal slop to message boards. Freedom of speech is about being able to speak your passion, the confluence of ideas. The very nature that all people are entitled to an opinion. People who would corrupt this, and claim free speech to be the free flow of whatever gibberish comes out of their mouths are destroying the cause. This exchange is an expression of free speech. The fact it is not censored, the fact that no warnings, nor bannings have ensued. You are allowed to speak your opinion despite the fact I (the power) could silence you. -- To clarify a few things: Biggie was banned since he was warned to 100%, and continued to break the rules. Biggie 2.0 was banned since the rules clearly state that attempting to subvert a ban will result in immediate banning. This is way ;), so there will be no more discussion of moderator policies here. Feel free to start a new thread, if you would like to offer constructive debate. Peace

;) not that I blame you... I will start a discussion about it with the other moderators. Peace

True, but the action itself is disassociated from the language element that cues them. My dog understands commands, do that me it understands english? The action is not understood in terms of language, but more in terms of concept. Peace

But none of your examples actually consider how we understand things. How information is stored in our brains. It is simple to assert that our actual understanding is a language, but if that language would be non-mutual (i.e. could not be understood by another) then is it a language at all. When I talked about sports I meant the actual feelings, and thoughts when your on the field. A basketball player doesn't have the words describing, or the pictures depicting how to do a free throw when he/she stands at the line. They simply understand the motion and execute it. There is not language involved. Often they are not even cognizant of their thoughts during the action. The motion is understood by abstract, not by language. Peace

I'll merge this up this the existing thread... creative solution though. I'll talk to Anton... maybe we can work out a "time out" on the no replying when your the last poster... the rule is only in effect to stop spamming, not to stop legitimate posting. Peace

I love the way the guy numbered them, so people think their valuable... Peace

Tis a good point... but this question hasn't been actually talked about that much recently. Peace

Download the interview. Peace CKKQ_Interview.mp3

If we can stay away from the rumor mill, that would be great. I do believe that Matt has commented in past that both Ian, and Dave enjoyed weed. To what extent is unknown, nor is whether any other drugs where involved. Peace

Unfortunately due the trend that these kind of threads go terribly wrong, resulting in inappropriate statements. In past, some could be considered libel. Therefor I am closing this thread at this time. Thanks for your understanding. Peace

But there is a critical failing in your logic: People have the right to give up there own rights. We have all kind of rights, which we can, if we choose, to give up. If you are arrested, you can forgo your right to a trial, taking a deal for a lesser sentence. By what logic can an individual not forgo there right to life. Provided your decision doesn't impact anybody else's rights? Peace

I wonder who will get the rights to her story? Peace

Good point JM... I mean humane euthanasia like you would do to you pet is illegal, but staving somebody to death, that's OK. Peace

Well I'm not going to loss sleep over any of these shows being cancelled. Peace