Moore Wins Top Award in Cannes

[clips]

i\'m mos definitely goin to check it out just out of curiosity...on another note i haven\'t really heard anything related on the news about what you posted about berg (luckee) i\'m referring to how that cat had connects with mouasoui (spell) from the world trade ctr...that was very interesting..if they did report it on the news i must\'ve missed it....

Originally posted by GmanJoe
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/127ujhuf.asp

Cord\'s gonna hate me for this.

I didn\'t bother to post anything on this until Michael Moore issued his own response.  I\'ve never considered Freddy Barnes a very insightful individual, nor do I automatically trust everything he says.  In fact I don\'t automatically trust anyone, including Michael Moore.  I consider this dispute unresolved.  However, if you want to reflexively assume that Moore is the one who is lying about it, then go ahead.

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/latestnews/index.php?id=19

May 31st, 2004 12:29 pm
WACKO ATTACKO #2 – FRED BARNES FLUNKS – AGAIN!

On January 18, 1988, I published an interview with Fred Barnes in a publication which I edited at the time, called Moore’s Weekly. I interviewed Mr. Barnes about his comments on the January 2, 1988 edition of “The McLaughlin Report,” in which he expressed support for then Secretary of the Education William Bennett’s theory that high school curriculum should be dominated by courses in classic Greek and English literature.

I asked Fred to share his views about two well-known classics, “the Iliad” by Homer and Dante’s Inferno. Barnes reiterated to me that these books are “what everybody oughta learn. They’re easy to read.”

In the course of my interview, I decided to give him a pop quiz. As you can see, Fred didn’t do so well. (View Moore\'s Weekly page one and page two, and the full column on Barnes here.)

The conservative paper, The Washington Times, liked my interview with Mr. Barnes and the paper wrote about it in their January 22, 1988 “Inside the Beltway” column (you can see it here). The Washington Times is the kind of paper Fred Barnes probably reads before he gets out of bed in the morning.

Fred Barnes did not complain when I published the interview with him 16-years-ago. He did not complain when the Washington Times article appeared in 1988. It was not until April 2002, when Stupid White Men came out, which recounted the Mr. Barnes interview, that Fox’s Brit Hume reported, “Fred Barnes told me today that he never talked to Moore in his life, and that he has read both ‘The Odyssey’ and ‘The Iliad’ cover to cover in college.”

Now that that my movie Fahrenheit 9-11 is receiving significant attention, Mr. Barnes has seen fit to publicly deny the whole thing again, even though I last referenced the interview in a book published two years ago.

Now, the cynically-inclined might say that Mr. Barnes, who has steadily faded into obscurity as an editor of a small circulation weekly, is trying to take advantage of the moment. I prefer to give Mr. Barnes the benefit of the doubt and credit his belated complaint to a fading memory. We all forget things sometimes, Fred. No hard feelings here.

Michael Moore

[GmanJoe]

The thing is with Michael Moore, he has little credibility. There are more credible liberals out there where I don\'t have to check nearly every damn thing they say. No hard feelings, Michael....but you suck.

michaelmoore.com?  is that a valid source?

You two are debating the credibility of Michael Moore and quoting Mr. Moore from his own website is hardly an objective source.  I really wanted to stop reading after the title...

"WACKO ATTACKO #2 – FRED BARNES FLUNKS – AGAIN!"

Sounds a bit reactionary to me.

Originally posted by GmanJoe
The thing is with Michael Moore, he has little credibility. There are more credible liberals out there where I don\'t have to check nearly every damn thing they say. No hard feelings, Michael....but you suck.

He only lacks credibility in your mind.  Conservatives don\'t like what he\'s saying so they endlessly nitpick every word in his books and every scene from his movies.  Nevermind the fact that he has a staff of researchers checking every fact he prints before it\'s released to the public.  Also nevermind that every attack against him is refuted thereafter.  Those who don\'t like what he\'s saying ignore the response, and just focus on the attacks.  I guess it\'s easier to remember what he was accused of, and just assume it\'s all true...

...especially for those who haven\'t bothered to see his films or read his books.

Originally posted by GigaShadow
michaelmoore.com?  is that a valid source?

What Fred Barnes claimed came out of his own mouth as well.  It is essentially a dispute between two individuals, so in a way it\'s not worthy of discussion.  There is no more valid source than the two individuals\' personal accounts.  Until the FBI produces a tape recording of the supposed telephone conversation, I doubt there will be any further evidence forthcoming.

My point is that there are no grounds to assume that Freddy Barnes is correct, OR that Michael Moore is correct.

Originally posted by Coredweller
What Fred Barnes claimed came out of his own mouth as well.  It is essentially a dispute between two individuals, so in a way it\'s not worthy of discussion.  There is no more valid source than the two individuals\' personal accounts.  Until the FBI produces a tape recording of the supposed telephone conversation, I doubt there will be any further evidence forthcoming.

My point is that there are no grounds to assume that Freddy Barnes is correct, OR that Michael Moore is correct.

I agree... both have different sides to their stories.  Who to believe... that depends on who you like or dislike.  Though,  I think other sources have proved that Moore does tend to stretch the truth quite a bit in regards to his sensationalist "documentries".

[GmanJoe]

Originally posted by Coredweller
He only lacks credibility in your mind.  Conservatives don\'t like what he\'s saying so they endlessly nitpick every word in his books and every scene from his movies.  Nevermind the fact that he has a staff of researchers checking every fact he prints before it\'s released to the public.  Also nevermind that every attack against him is refuted thereafter.  Those who don\'t like what he\'s saying ignore the response, and just focus on the attacks.  I guess it\'s easier to remember what he was accused of, and just assume it\'s all true...

...especially for those who haven\'t bothered to see his films or read his books.

I don\'t think you seem to understand. The way he edited Bowling were half truths and who knows what else. I don\'t need to stick my finger in feces to know if it\'s feces.

[GmanJoe]

Originally posted by Coredweller

Family portrait of yours?

I thought it was you and your brothers.

[GmanJoe]

Originally posted by luckee
I thought it was you and your brothers.

The first chimp looks like your mother.

Well I have had enough of the insulting for one day - Gman.  Thread closed.