Finally, something other than hockey worth watching on CBC.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

So my criticisms about it are perfectly on point. This isn't a thread about the evils of fast food.

No, but the movie is.

You're like the guy on Fox News who critiques some newsmakers boil instead of the message.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

No, but the movie is.

You're like the guy on Fox News who critiques some newsmakers boil instead of the message.

I'm getting a taste for how things work on this OT forum. Rather than actually debate the points people throw out comments like the above.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

I'm getting a taste for how things work on this OT forum. Rather than actually debate the points people throw out comments like the above.

It's usually more civil. I don't know what's got Vulcan so bent out of shape, I think Ronald must have beat him up as a kid or something.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

I'm getting a taste for how things work on this OT forum. Rather than actually debate the points people throw out comments like the above.

Well that's just it, you won't debate fast food is good for you or not [the theme of the movie] but you attack the messenger and now you attack me.

I think we'll both agree a Macdonalds or other fast food diet isn't good for us and we both agree the movie maker overshot his target with his shoddy methods.
The problem I have is you seem to be ignoring what MacDonalds does by attacking the show making MacDonalds look innocent.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Burninator

It's usually more civil. I don't know what's got Vulcan so bent out of shape, I think Ronald must have beat him up as a kid or something.

When I was a kid there was no Ronald and hardly any processed food and hardly any lardasses.

[RedHot25]

Originally Posted by FireFly

Well I'm going to try out Little Mosque on the Prairie. I think it looks funny.

Actually, me too. Who knows, it could turn out to be great or a bomb, but these people who are already knocking it....well you haven't seen it, so.....

Anyways, I just found this - http://othernews.ca.myway.com/articl.../37981024.html

Paula Zahn and CNN crew visit set of CBC's 'Little Mosque on the Prairie'
American newswoman Paula Zahn and a crew from CNN visited the set of the CBC's highly anticipated "Little Mosque on the Prairie" on Wednesday in advance of the TV show's premiere Jan. 9.

"Little Mosque on the Prairie," a comedy about Muslims trying to interact with their small-town neighbours in a fictional Canadian prairie town called Mercy, has been receiving the kind of advance buzz that most publicity departments only dream about.
It's been written up in the New York Times, the Houston Chronicle and by The Associated Press, with Stephen Colbert, the fake late-night talk-show host, also taking notice. CNN has also done previous items on "Little Mosque."

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Well that's just it, you won't debate fast food is good for you or not [the theme of the movie] but you attack the messenger and now you attack me.

I think we'll both agree a Macdonalds or other fast food diet isn't good for us and we both agree the movie maker overshot his target with his shoddy methods.
The problem I have is you seem to be ignoring what MacDonalds does by attacking the show making MacDonalds look innocent.

Maybe because I have no interest in debating whtehr or not fast food is good for me. That's not the topic I was debating and nor am I obliged to do so.

I'd also like clarification where in this thread I have "attacked you".

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Maybe because I have no interest in debating whtehr or not fast food is good for me. That's not the topic I was debating and nor am I obliged to do so.

I'd also like clarification where in this thread I have "attacked you".

The topic you were debating was derailing the original issue of fast food. That's fine topics get derailed all the time, but you were using it to bring people to the conclusion that since the guy dissing fast food wasn't completely on the up and up, MacDonalds was OK. This is how I see it, it's done all the time, maybe you weren't trying for this but it sure looked like it.

As for attacking me, you did state "Rather than actually debate the points people throw out comments like the above".
I was making my point, rather bluntly, but I wasn't just throwing comments out there.

[Textcritic]

Presently airing The Greatest Canadian Invention.
Some of the highlights among the top fifty so far include the anti-gravity suit, set-frame computer animation, the propeller shaft, plexiglass, the combine (technically invented by a transplanted Australian), the green garbage bag, the electronic music synthesizer (originally called the "electronic sackbut"[?!]), the paint roller, the alkaline battery, the walkie-talkie...
It causes one to wonder what 30 inventions could possibly top all of these!

Stay tuned...

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

The topic you were debating was derailing the original issue of fast food. That's fine topics get derailed all the time, but you were using it to bring people to the conclusion that since the guy dissing fast food wasn't completely on the up and up, MacDonalds was OK. This is how I see it, it's done all the time, maybe you weren't trying for this but it sure looked like it.

The original issue was not fast food.

The original issue is programming on CBC.

Someone mentioned Super Size Me.

I provided commentary on it.

If this thread was entitled "The Evils of Fast FOod" I could understand your point, but that's not what it is.

Actually looking back now I responded to a post by CC where he originally crticized the film. So tell me how I have derailed things?

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

The original issue was not fast food.

The original issue is programming on CBC.

Someone mentioned Super Size Me.

I provided commentary on it.

If this thread was entitled "The Evils of Fast FOod" I could understand your point, but that's not what it is.

Actually looking back now I responded to a post by CC where he originally crticized the film. So tell me how I have derailed things?

Now you're just being purposely obtuse.

[Textcritic]

The instant replay was invented by Canadian sportscaster George Ratzlaff. Who knew?

[JiriHrdina]

I've never really understood what it means to be obtuse and don't feel like looking it up so I'll just agree that I'm being obtuse. Frankly I have no idea why you got so bent out of shape over this.

[kermitology]

Vulcan.. what's your problem in this thread?

It all seemed to start when you claimed that Jiri didn't know any better about fast food being bad for you. He didn't say it wasn't bad, just that the film-maker in this case took a rather extreme approach to his "experiment."

Even still, I said that people go to those places because they are lazy.

I don't understand how you can't deny the fact that a massive change in dietary and exercise habits won't obviously have an extreme impact on the body. The film is intended to get a point across and he does that. But it's not really science.

The issue of this thread was Arrested Development being shown on CBC. Discussing that which was on CBC lead to discussing Super Size Me. Discussing Super Size Me turned into discussing the "science" the film maker uses to prove his point. Then you got into some weird debate with Jiri that no one understands and here we are.

[Textcritic]

Re: The Top Twenty:
Radio voice transmission invented by Reginald Fesinden; the electron microscope by Hillier and Primous; Standard Time by Sir Fleming; The Bloody Ceasar by Walter Chell, and invented in Calgary; "Java", by James Gosling, also from Calgary; The electric wheelchair by George Klein; The Robertson screw (my personal favourite); The under-wire bra by Louise Poirier...

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by kermitology

I don't understand how you can't deny the fact that a massive change in dietary and exercise habits won't obviously have an extreme impact on the body. The film is intended to get a point across and he does that. But it's not really science.

The issue of this thread was Arrested Development being shown on CBC. Discussing that which was on CBC lead to discussing Super Size Me. Discussing Super Size Me turned into discussing the "science" the film maker uses to prove his point. Then you got into some weird debate with Jiri that no one understands and here we are.

I don't think the Super Size movie ever declared that this is "100% science and will finally put to rest the McDonalds debate." Maybe I just saw it in a different light than you guys. But to me the movie seemed more like it was trying say "hey, yes this is an extreme case, but I am trying to give a wake up call to America that McDonalds is bad food and America is fat." It wasn't meant to be a scientific dietary lecture. And if some people see the movie and take it at face value, honestly whats the harm in this case? They will stop eating McDonalds and eat healthier and exercising. I do concede that the movie had flaws, but less money into McDonalds and Cokes pockets is no sweat off my back.

[kermitology]

There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding in this thread regarding this movie.

First, I don't disagree that it's a problem. I just disagree with how he presented himself. He presented this as a scientific experiment and he ran with an extreme situation, rather than a likely one.

He doesn't direct enough on the consumer responsibility, in my opinion.

[Red Mile Style]

I personally do not see a problem with the way he conducted his "experiment". I mean, the same similiar situation is used to test things like pharmeceuticals. I met this guy once who would be in research groups testing out new pharmeceuticals, and basically he was forced to act like an "average American" and had to take the different drugs for a certain amount of time, to see what the side-effects would be. I don't see a difference between that and what the Supersize Me guy did. How exactly else can you produce the possible side-effects of eating MacDonald's than trying to survive solely on it? You took a perfectly healthy, middle-aged, white, American male and made him eat MacDonalds and saw the repercussions. As far as science is involved, I see an independent variable and a dependent variable, as well as a controlled variable.

Regardless of if you consume that MacDonalds crap everyday for a month, or once a week for a year, it's still the same crap going into your system. It's going to have the same effects on you, only you probably don't realize it.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

All great stuff that would have made for an interesting documentary. But that's not the movie he made. The movie he made was a gimmicky piece of propaganda with a pretty clear agenda from the start. As a fan of docs, this type of uber-slanted trash bugs me.

I realize that this is what he said he did. But I find it VERY hard to believe that the national average is NO exercise (not even walking to work) and overeating fast food EVERY day.
Sorry I don't buy that at all.

They did have some of the points I just made in the doc, but you are right, the majority of it centered on the 'experiment', which wasn't much of one. I guess that's the way of getting you (or anyone) to watch all the other tidbits thrown in there?

As far as the national average lifestyle. I don't know. There's always a bunch of different ways to find out a statistical average. Maybe they found one that ft their cause, or maybe it is close to the truth. I do know a few people who live lives like that. As well, that was in the States, and although we are catching up, Canadians are still significantly more fit and healthy. Maybe it's seems like a stretch to us because of the differences in our societies?

[V]

So who knew the light bulb wasn't invented by Thomas Edison?? Not this lighting designer.