f911 dvd screeners

[RandFan]

Similarly, if you despise an author, but you want to read his/her book, steal it from the bookstore.

What if you don't want to read the book but everyone tells you that you can't be part of the discussion until you read it?

I think a little civil disobedience is called for in this instance. Download the movie.

 

[RandFan]

This business gets tiresome Esther. I'll give you one tip about this board. The racism I see here is overwhelmingly by Zionists, many of whom are Jewish, directed at Muslims and Arabs in particular.

This is the typical, "everyone who does not agree with me is a racist" tripe. There are strong views and strong words from lots of different groups including some very nasty and mean things directed at Jews. I don't see more vitriol, malice or intelectual dishonesty coming from any one group. And how would one quantify such a thing? Skepticism doesn't appear to be The Fool's strong suit. Is it possible that The Fool's own emotions betray him? Does he see what he wants to see or is he really an objective observer. By his own standards The Fool is rendered to anti-Semite. Note, I said "his standards".

Would it not be better to make arguments and rebut arguments rather than name calling and gainsaying?

 

[Skeptic]

The Cubans are allowed only to breathe by Castro's regime not to mention that they can hardly survive their poverty and yet they packed the theatres in Havana to see this film...

I always wondered why, if capitalist America is so awful and the Communist heaven of the workers so wonderful, that the leaky boats with refugees are flowing only FROM Cuba TO America and not the other way around.

 

[Skeptic]

Esther: to give you an idea of "The Fool"'s real attitude toward jews, which he thinly disguises by using the word "zionist" instead, you can read this thread, where here accused "The Talmud" of being "racist". Renata and others on the forum then proved his examples of "racist" talmudic quotes were out-of-context, distorted, or downright invented "quotes" he lifted from some neo-nazi or antisemitic website.

Either he knew that these sites were antisemitic and neo-nazi, in which case he's an antisemite, or he simply googled "racism in the talmud" (or the equivalent) and just copied the first few links that came up without bothering to check their veracity--in which case, too, he is obviously antisemitic, with his cavalier "what can we blame on the jews today?" attitude.

 

[The Fool]

This is the typical, "everyone who does not agree with me is a racist" tripe.

There are many people who disagree with me. Some, like "skeptic" are racists. Most are not.

There are strong views and strong words from lots of different groups including some very nasty and mean things directed at Jews. I don't see more vitriol, malice or intelectual dishonesty coming from any one group.

Can you give me some examples of the nasty and mean things directed at Jews? I see a lot of critisism of Israeli foreign policy and a lot of critisizm of Zionism. I only seem to see Zionists and supporters of Israel attempting to transfer this critisism to "The Jews"


And how would one quantify such a thing?

Show me any racist attack on Jews on this board that rival "skeptics" rants. Show me where Jews have to put up with being described as bloodthirsty backward savages. Show me a chorus of apologists surrounding someone who is guilty of such racist outbursts against Jews such as the cheersquad who bravely forgive "skeptic" by attempting to rationalise away his rantings.... would you consider me anti-semitic if I refered to Israel as being populated by bloodthirsty savages? Yet, apparently, when skeptic refered to the nations surrounding Israel as 150,000,000 bloodthirsty savages all it drew from The resident Zionists was claims that this is not a racist statement.

Skepticism doesn't appear to be The Fool's strong suit. Is it possible that The Fool's own emotions betray him?

Don't dance around Randfan...what is this supposed to be implying?

Does he see what he wants to see or is he really an objective observer. By his own standards The Fool is rendered to anti-Semite. Note, I said "his standards".

once again I am not clear what you are suggesting, like to elaborate?

Would it not be better to make arguments and rebut arguments rather than name calling and gainsaying?
Ok by me..as long as the term anti-semite isnt excluded from the burden of proof. I have never been reluctant to say exactly what someone has typed that leads me to calling them a racist. Why is there less of a requirement when labeling someone anti-semitic? Feeling, impressions, hidden meanings and in one classic case it was suggested that it was what I didn't say that branded me anti-semitic.

I notice "skeptic" posting to this thread, I no longer respond to or even read his posts. I only bring this up to point out to readers of this thread that any words he places in quotes are likely to be his own fabrications, even when he directly attributes them to someone. I was not able to convince him to stop this and I expect he has not changed much. I suggest forum members go back and read anything he refers to for themselves (assuming you can find it and you are even remotely interested).

 

[Mr Manifesto]

Ok by me..as long as the term anti-semite isnt excluded from the burden of proof. I have never been reluctant to say exactly what someone has typed that leads me to calling them a racist. Why is there less of a requirement when labeling someone anti-semitic? Feeling, impressions, hidden meanings and in one classic case it was suggested that it was what I didn't say that branded me anti-semitic.

I notice "skeptic" posting to this thread, I no longer respond to or even read his posts. I only bring this up to point out to readers of this thread that any words he places in quotes are likely to be his own fabrications, even when he directly attributes them to someone. I was not able to convince him to stop this and I expect he has not changed much. I suggest forum members go back and read anything he refers to for themselves (assuming you can find it and you are even remotely interested).

There's only one thing I have to say. Jean-Bertrand Aristide.

 

[RandFan]

Would it not be better to make arguments and rebut arguments rather than name calling and gainsaying?
Ok by me..as long as the term anti-semite isnt excluded from the burden of proof. I have never been reluctant to say exactly what someone has typed that leads me to calling them a racist. Why is there less of a requirement when labeling someone anti-semitic? Feeling, impressions, hidden meanings and in one classic case it was suggested that it was what I didn't say that branded me anti-semitic.

I notice "skeptic" posting to this thread, I no longer respond to or even read his posts. I only bring this up to point out to readers of this thread that any words he places in quotes are likely to be his own fabrications, even when he directly attributes them to someone. I was not able to convince him to stop this and I expect he has not changed much. I suggest forum members go back and read anything he refers to for themselves (assuming you can find it and you are even remotely interested). [/B]

I certainly see things quite different than you do. I stopped getting involved in the Israel/Palestinian debates because I found that they often devolved into name calling from both sides. It has been at least 6 months and likely more since I even read such a thread so it will be difficult for me to find the proof but I will labor to do so.

If anyone else reading this thread can assist me I would appreciate it.

RandFan

 

[KelvinG]

What if you don't want to read the book but everyone tells you that you can't be part of the discussion until you read it?

I think a little civil disobedience is called for in this instance. Download the movie.

Well, if everyone tells you to have to read it to be part of the discussion, and you want to be part of the discussion, then you obviously now want to read the book. So you should buy it.

I'll admit, I'm ultra-sensitive about this issue since I work on movies and I'm more than familiar with acts of piracy. It irritates the hell out of me when I work on a film for a year, and then hear that it's being sold on the streets in other countries before we've officially released it those countries. I haven't noticed any of the movies I've cut available anywhere to download yet, but I know it's just a matter of time. Plain and simple, it really pisses me off that everyone has such a bloody complacent attitude towards what amounts to stealing.
But, again, my opinion on this matter is obviously going to be quite subjective since it hits closer to home for me.

Anyways, I don't want to turn this thread into one about piracy and downloading.
Back to the topic at hand.
Whatever the hell that was.

 

[RandFan]

Well, if everyone tells you to have to read it to be part of the discussion, and you want to be part of the discussion, then you obviously now want to read the book. So you should buy it.

I'll admit, I'm ultra-sensitive about this issue since I work on movies and I'm more than familiar with acts of piracy. It irritates the hell out of me when I work on a film for a year, and then hear that it's being sold on the streets in other countries before we've officially released it those countries. I haven't noticed any of the movies I've cut available anywhere to download yet, but I know it's just a matter of time. Plain and simple, it really pisses me off that everyone has such a bloody complacent attitude towards what amounts to stealing.
But, again, my opinion on this matter is obviously going to be quite subjective since it hits closer to home for me.

Anyways, I don't want to turn this thread into one about piracy and downloading.
Back to the topic at hand.
Whatever the hell that was.

I understand your point. I just respectfully disagree. I'm all for protection of copyright but I think that there can be exceptions and this is certainly one IMO.

 

[KelvinG]

I understand your point. I just respectfully disagree. I'm all for protection of copyright but I think that there can be exceptions and this is certainly one IMO.

Care to share what you think some other exceptions to copyright protection could be?

 

[Thumper]

Who's "law" was it that said any discussion on the Internet will eventually mention Hitler? It took 10 posts on this thread. All sarcasm aside, come on people... this is shameful.

The topic was F911, not Hitler. Keep on topic?

BTW: Today, Kuwait banned the showing of F911.

(AP) - Kuwait, a major U.S. ally in the Persian Gulf, has banned Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" because it deems the movie insulting to the Saudi Arabian royal family and critical of America's invasion of Iraq, an official said Sunday. "We have a law that prohibits insulting friendly nations, and ties between Kuwait and Saudi Arabia are special," Abdul-Aziz Bou Dastour, cinema and production supervisor at the Information Ministry, told The Associated Press.

Yahoo Link

Kind of interesting, no?

 

[RandFan]

Care to share what you think some other exceptions to copyright protection could be?

Hey Kelvin,

I really think you've got me wrong on this one. Perhaps my use of the word exception was poorly chosen. I support copyright protection. I think those who break the law should be punished. I have already paid to see the movie and have no reason to watch it again. If I hadn't I would download it and watch it as an act of civil disobedience and to deny Moore profits from his hate motivated however well produced and in places wrong propaganda. I would do so knowing that I was breaking the law and subject to persecution if caught.

I have no illusions that the act would be anything of significance Just a simple act directed against someone with what I think is undeserved and unelected power/influence. I think others who feel the same way as I do should download and watch the film for free.

Thanks

 

[KelvinG]

Hey Kelvin,

I really think you've got me wrong on this one. Perhaps my use of the word exception was poorly chosen. I support copyright protection. I think those who break the law should be punished. I have already paid to see the movie and have no reason to watch it again. If I hadn't I would download it and watch it as an act of civil disobedience and to deny Moore profits from his hate motivated however well produced and in places wrong propaganda. I would do so knowing that I was breaking the law and subject to persecution if caught.

I have no illusions that the act would be anything of significance Just a simple act directed against someone with what I think is undeserved and unelected power/influence. I think others who feel the same way as I do should download and watch the film for free.

Thanks

Fair enough, but I hope you would support me if I told you I just went out and stole Anne Coulter's latest book from the bookstore.
I could say it's an act of civil disobedience and I'm aware of the consequences if I get caught, but I'm doing it to deny Coulter profits from my buying the book.
I don't see any difference from what you have proposed.

 

[RandFan]

Fair enough, but I hope you would support me if I told you I just went out and stole Anne Coulter's latest book from the bookstore.
I could say it's an act of civil disobedience and I'm aware of the consequences if I get caught, but I'm doing it to deny Coulter profits from my buying the book.
I don't see any difference from what you have proposed.

Hi Kelvin,

Absolutely I would support you.

Thanks,

RandFan

 

[KelvinG]

Hi Kelvin,

Absolutely I would support you.

Thanks,

RandFan

Well, at least your being consistent.

That said, Coulter's book really sucks. I'm glad I didn't pay for it.
(just kidding!)

 

[RandFan]

Well, at least your being consistent.

That said, Coulter's book really sucks. I'm glad I didn't pay for it.
(just kidding!)

Your ok Kelvin and you are on firm ground as to your position.

RandFan