Hi guys.

Once again, we must ask people to refrain from ad hominem attacks per the wishes of The Man. Criticize the idea, not the person holding it.

Thanks.

Da Management

Golly, here I thought the "Flight 93" movie was just popular because we're up to 92 posts already.

Hi guys.

Once again, we must ask people to refrain from ad hominem attacks per the wishes of The Man. Criticize the idea, not the person holding it.

Thanks.

Da Management

Dear God!--is Snake back on the board?:eek:

I have a question. I've read some of these posts and some people are saying that no one knows what happened on that flight.

But isn't there the black box recording which had everything recorded up until the crash. I remember reading in the paper a while back that they let the families of the the victims listen to it. Some people coyldn't even go through with listening to it cuz it was so disturbing.

So if that is true then doesn't that mean that there is truth to the notion that these people fought back?

I have a question. I've read some of these posts and some people are saying that no one knows what happened on that flight.

But isn't there the black box recording which had everything recorded up until the crash. I remember reading in the paper a while back that they let the families of the the victims listen to it. Some people coyldn't even go through with listening to it cuz it was so disturbing.

So if that is true then doesn't that mean that there is truth to the notion that these people fought back?

Nobody's denying that passengers fought back against the terrorists. This thread just degenerated into a series of personal attacks because a lone voice on this board made the broad assumption that people of a certain political slant would be unwilling to fight back. Well, that contention was proven wrong.

Nobody's denying that passengers fought back against the terrorists. This thread just degenerated into a series of personal attacks because a lone voice on this board made the broad assumption that people of a certain political slant would be unwilling to fight back. Well, that contention was proven wrong.

I can't let you have the last word.

Unfortunately, you prove nothing and you contribute even less (is that possible?) to a discussion. For someone who decries "personal attacks," it's always you who throws out the first insult and squeals the loudest at the reaction you provoke.

While it is true that I have opinions about liberals and personal experience of their general philosophy and behavior that I use to extrapolate what I imagine their reactions would be, none of this can be termed a personal attack. The fact you object and react so vehemently only lends greater credence to my suppositions. However, the post that originally took this thread toward a political slant was not posted by you, Jimbow8, or myself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hford713
That's precisely how I feel about it.

The day its director comes out and states that he is going to donate EVERY penny of profit from B.O. receipts to whatever charity, is the day I'll rent it.

The director obviously spent a good chunk of his time bringing this project to fruition - and he did it for money, not a message.

I usually don't take stances like this, but this is one that just kind of made me sick.

And, my response:
This sounds very much like what I said with regard to Brokeback Mountain. I guess it's OK to make money from a movie with a liberal message, but don't DARE make a movie with a patriotic message and expect to profit from it! I'm sure Michael Moore made a few bucks with his scurrilous propaganda dressed up as a documentary (which it was not, send back the Oscar, Mike!). Check to see how much he contributed to charity (the DNC doesn't count!).

Maybe Mike will make a "documentary" showing how America is to blame for 9/11 and terrorism? Perhaps then, he will splurge on a razor, new baseball cap, and a South Beach Diet book.

Note hford713 was "made sick" by a film that he hasn't yet seen. That's a pretty sensitive stomach and we all know that liberals are so much more sensitive than callous conservatives!

I am quite content to be a "lone voice," but it will take more than a liberal chorus to drown me out!

And do you not consider this to be a personal attack?

Scott [Hajek or Miller?]'s greatest point is found on the tippy-top of his empty, liberal head!

For someone who decries "personal attacks," it's always you who throws out the first insult and squeals the loudest at the reaction you provoke.

I'm still lookin' for where Scott made an insult or personal attack in this thread. Perhaps you could point it out.

Thanks

Jim

NewYorkJoe,

Start from the beginning of the thread and read.

My post was actually in response to ANOTHER post[er] - and it dealt only with a personal boycott of the film based on the director's decision to tackle the subject. I didn't bash a film I haven't seen and I didn't go off on some tirade about what happened on the plane that day. My post had nothing to do with the subject matter of the film at all - only the director and his choice to make the film.

Leave me out of your ever-deepening shithole, please.

Thanks.

NewYorkJoe,

Start from the beginning of the thread and read.

My post was actually in response to ANOTHER post[er] - and it dealt only with a personal boycott of the film based on the director's decision to tackle the subject. I didn't bash a film I haven't seen and I didn't go off on some tirade about what happened on the plane that day. My post had nothing to do with the subject matter of the film at all - only the director and his choice to make the film.

Leave me out of your ever-deepening shithole, please.

Thanks.

Yes, your post was in response to another. My sole point is that I entered the thread for the first time in responding to yours. The divergence began there as the usual liberal clamor arose from other posters, not you.

But, how can your personal choice to boycott the film be unrelated to the film's subject? Do you know this director personally and hate him? Have you viewed his work previously and found it wanting? No, you anticipate seeing the events of Flight 93 portrayed in a way that lends itself as a tool to those with whom you disagree politically. That is why liberals have no problem whatsoever with the trash produced by Michael Moore, propaganda, slander, and innuendo presented as documentary. It serves their needs and feeds their hatred. And, you did not bash the film and no one said that you did, because you obviously did not see it, but, once again, that open (closed) liberal mindset refuses to view anything that disagrees with its preconcieved notions.

Your post was a pathetic attempt to prejudge something that you had already refused to experience. Do you really expect to impress someone with your ability to close your mind? Any two-year-old with his fingers in his ears and shouting "No!" can do that.

Yes, your post was in response to another. My sole point is that I entered the thread for the first time in responding to yours. The divergence began there as the usual liberal clamor arose from other posters, not you.

But, how can your personal choice to boycott the film be unrelated to the film's subject? Do you know this director personally and hate him? Have you viewed his work previously and found it wanting? No, you anticipate seeing the events of Flight 93 portrayed in a way that lends itself as a tool to those with whom you disagree politically. That is why liberals have no problem whatsoever with the trash produced by Michael Moore, propaganda, slander, and innuendo presented as documentary. It serves their needs and feeds their hatred. And, you did not bash the film and no one said that you did, because you obviously did not see it, but, once again, that open (closed) liberal mindset refuses to view anything that disagrees with its preconcieved notions.

Your post was a pathetic attempt to prejudge something that you had already refused to experience. Do you really expect to impress someone with your ability to close your mind? Any two-year-old with his fingers in his ears and shouting "No!" can do that.

I suppose you actually reading a post before replying is too much to ask.

My preconceived notions? My pathetic attempt to prejudge something that I already refused to experience? Closing my mind? Something about two-year-olds and their fingers?

I am guilty of none of the above considering I'm NOT TALKING ABOUT THE MOVIE ITSELF. I'm talking about my mere disagreement with the director in choosing to make the film - NOT the film itself.

I have no preconceived notions about the film. How can I, when I'm not talking about the film? Nor am I prejudging what I refuse to experience. How's that? Because I am not talking about the film. My mind can't be closed when considering the final product because I am not talking about the final product. The two-year-old? You're right. I do have a niece that does in fact walk around with her fingers in her ears shouting "No!" all the time. (Hell, one out of 37 ain't bad.)

We're talking apples (the director's selection) and oranges (the film itself). They are two very different things. If you're unable to differentiate between the two and can't do anything more than let me know what political affiliation I belong to and claim that I'm trying to impress people with a closed mind, I really don't know what to say - besides what I already have on numerous occassions.