Quake3World

Pooinyourmouth wrote:Looks like you're at a loss for words I see. So now all you have left is some high school name calling eh?

I'm certainly at loss for words

Poo

Pooinyourmouth wrote:

Mr.Magnetichead wrote:
Oh bull SHIT. That's like saying Hitler wasn't responsible for the holocaust.

WTF? I didn't say Bush was not responsible for sending troops. I just said Moore is a dick for using the whole deal as a source of income.

Moore is just saying it like it is. Remember what he said when he wasn't sure if his September 11th movie wouldn't get published? He said if he had to, he would get a movie projector and set it up against the side of a house just to get his message out. I doubt someone who was just in it for the money would go to that trouble... they'd probably just admit defeat if it wouldn't get published.

He also allowed the movie to be downloaded, despite his publisher being bitchy. Don't talk about money this guy truly believes what he says.

shiznit wrote:He also allowed the movie to be downloaded, despite his publisher being bitchy. Don't talk about money this guy truly believes what he says.

Zing. Does Poo lose yet?

shiznit wrote:He also allowed the movie to be downloaded, despite his publisher being bitchy. Don't talk about money this guy truly believes what he says.

I already knew about this, but really it makes no effect on how much he's raking in. Has downloading any movie or song really hurt anyone yet, money wise?

The guy is living large (pun intended) off others tragedy, and in my opinion is no better than Bush. I already know Bush is a fuck up, I don't need to be paying $7 for this guys take on the whole thing.

by your logic, any professor who specializes in teaching history is bad because they are profiting off other's misfortunes.

Stop clinging onto this stupid argument.

Pooinyourmouth wrote:

shiznit wrote:He also allowed the movie to be downloaded, despite his publisher being bitchy. Don't talk about money this guy truly believes what he says.

I already knew about this, but really it makes no effect on how much he's raking in. Has downloading any movie or song really hurt anyone yet, money wise?

The guy is living large (pun intended) off others tragedy, and in my opinion is no better than Bush. I already know Bush is a fuck up, I don't need to be paying $7 for this guys take on the whole thing.

So then do you think it's wrong for channels like the Discovery Channel to make shows about tragedies? Since, after all, they'd be profiting from it. Do you think it's wrong for the news to document tragedies?

Honestly, I don't see your point.

[xeno]Julios wrote:by your logic, any professor who specializes in teaching history is bad because they are profiting off other's misfortunes.

Stop clinging onto this stupid argument.

That is far from the same. Teachers don't make jack shit for money. Just ask tnf.

Honestly, he does it because he likes talking about the subject. He's a messenger. He makes money because he's good at it. SO FUCKING WHAT

/me hands poo a shovel

i care :icon27:

eepberries wrote:Honestly, he does it because he likes talking about the subject. He's a messenger. He makes money because he's good at it. SO FUCKING WHAT

He's a money grubbing attention whore that puts out biased exaggerated documentaries. That's fucking what.

Pooinyourmouth wrote:

[xeno]Julios wrote:by your logic, any professor who specializes in teaching history is bad because they are profiting off other's misfortunes.

Stop clinging onto this stupid argument.

That is far from the same. Teachers don't make jack shit for money. Just ask tnf.

lol - i said professors. There are professors who rake in massive amounts of money.

your argument is idiotic, if it is based solely on the criteria of financial reward.

You are idiotic if you cannot accept this.

Perhaps its time to separate yourself from the argument and modify/refine it.

[xeno]Julios wrote: lol - i said professors. There are professors who rake in massive amounts of money.

your argument is idiotic, if it is based solely on the criteria of financial reward.

You are idiotic if you cannot accept this.

Perhaps its time to separate yourself from the argument and modify/refine it.

Oh come on now. You and I both know that a professor is know where near the bias or the income of Moore. Why would you even compare the two? It would be idiotic to even try.

It was only until the 3rd post on the second page where you even mentioned bias.

So far your argument has mainly been:

"He's bad because he's profiting off other people's misfortunes"

You threw in a "whilte acting like he really cares" clause once, but it wasn't a point you harped on, especially after people challenged it.

now there may indeed be good reasons to despite Moore, though I personally haven't researched him or his arguments fully enough to believe so.

My guess is that your despisal for him is a misplaced despisal for his fans.

[xeno]Julios wrote:It was only until the 3rd post on the second page where you even mentioned bias.

So far your argument has mainly been:

"He's bad because he's profiting off other people's misfortunes"

You threw in a "whilte acting like he really cares" clause once, but it wasn't a point you harped on, especially after people challenged it.

So what is your argument really? (aside from just not really liking mine)

Lol, you're either trolling poorly, or a complete fucking fool.

So how am I a fool for disliking Moore and his tactics? Please elaborate without getting all childish like, like magnethead did.

Do you feel like I'm a fool for not being a Moore fan and sharing my opinion about it?

Also if I was trolling poorly wouldn't I have been ignored by now?

Pooinyourmouth wrote:

[xeno]Julios wrote:It was only until the 3rd post on the second page where you even mentioned bias.

So far your argument has mainly been:

"He's bad because he's profiting off other people's misfortunes"

You threw in a "whilte acting like he really cares" clause once, but it wasn't a point you harped on, especially after people challenged it.

So what is your argument really? (aside from just not really liking mine)

you're mistaking my critique of your argument as an aesthetic one?

I don't have an argument - i'm critiquing yours.

Pooinyourmouth wrote:
Do you feel like I'm a fool for not being a Moore fan and sharing my opinion about it?

do you think that you have to either be a fan or a hater?

I'm not a fan of any number of random famous people out there. It doesn't mean I hate them.

As I said, I suspect your problem is with the fans, not their hero.

[xeno]Julios wrote:
I don't have an argument - i'm critiquing yours.

You can't critique an argument by comparing apples to oranges, (or in this case Moore to a professor). Sounds to me like you are backing out of your original argument.

I don't see why you see a problem with Moore, he's making money off his films and books but he's also using a lot of the funds for good things. He tried to bring change during the election and got little to no recognition while wasting millions of his dollars to do so.