Ahead of its time?
At the time people said the movie was rather far-fetched and unrealistic. This seems to have changed, though, with the discussion about privacy and intelligence surveillance that arose after 9/11.
shareAbsolutely
share
MovieChat Forums > Enemy of the State (1998) Discussion > Ahead of its time?
Yeah, or maybe most of our tech came out of that roswell crash and certain small parts of the government have advanced tech
I mean, star force, seems bit out there, so whats not being told?
Like with whats publicly known, surly the air force can sort out current threats
yes, it was ahead at that time. pretty sure most of the tech was doable then, just people didnt believe it, so it was FICTION.
now.... yeah.... ahead of its time
Yep. Not the biggest fan but EotS was far ahead of the curve in that regard.
shareThe Jon Voight character is born on Sept. 11th.
The wife describes a talking head as a "fascist gasbag." On TV, he says "Security and freedom have always existed in a very precarious balance, and when buildings start blowing up, people's priorities tend to change."
umm where did you get this from? its not based on a novel with more background details and no such mention for. birthdate is made in the film. im curious?
shareI'm sure the birthdate is shown in a profile of Voight's character. If you're in the States, the movie is now freely available on TubiTV, so you should be able to pause it. The quotes can be confirmed in a transcript, available here: http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scripts/e/enemy-of-the-state-script.html
sharenowhere in that script is the word September, sept, eleven, 11, birthday. you've made all this up
shareChrist, you're stupid. I said the birthday does not appear as dialogue. It's in a profile, so you'll have to pause the film.
shareyou said "the quotes can be confirmed in the transcript, available here"
so WHERES THE QUOTES. what profile. where is the profile in the film. YOU MADE THE CLAIM. YOU PROVIDE EVIDENCE>
and im stupid?
Yes, you are stupid. Sand-poundingly stupid. I thought you were another right-wing dumbfuck on this site, but to my great disappointment, you are something on the left. I claimed that the birthdate was in a profile, so it could not be spoken. I mentioned a site that is currently streaming the film for free. The quotes are available in the transcript, which I provided.
You apparently need information spoonfed to you with airplane noises.
Here's a quote from the IMDb trivia page: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120660/trivia?ref_=tttr_ql_trv_1
"Thomas Brian Reynolds' (Jon Voight's character) birthday is September 11."
You will want to seriously re-think how you engage with other people because you look like a fucking fool.
Quoting Leodicaprio for posterity (and an lasting monument to your stupidity):
you said "the quotes can be confirmed in the transcript, available here"share
so WHERES THE QUOTES. what profile. where is the profile in the film. YOU MADE THE CLAIM. YOU PROVIDE EVIDENCE>
and im stupid?
Ya I know sorry I ask for evidence. then you give me "evidence" claiming "the quotes can be confirmed in the transcript, available here"
so guess what? I assume, the quotes can be confirmed in the transcript. how silly of me. to think, its confirmed, in the transcript. I am so dumb.
yes I need information GIVEN to me. the burden of proof is on you clown. I dont get to say "well actually Sasquatch exists". and when you ask for evidence, say "apparently need information spoonfed to you with airplane noises. "
I am sorry you dont know how burden of proof works. I am sorry you give me something saying "the quotes can be confirmed in the transcript". which it isnt!
you are an idiot. plain and simple. finally you provided evidence after giving me nothing. wow that was hard! you've graduated to grade 9 level of introduction to argumentation. you've finally demonstrating your intelligence matches 15 year olds. it only took 3 replies of insults and nothing. you've made it man. to 15 years old intelectually.
also anyone can add to the trivia page. and a search of it shows NO OTHER place confirming this other than the imdv trivia page. Not on his regular character page. not on the villain fandom wiki https://villains.fandom.com/wiki/Thomas_Reynolds. if its in the film, provide a time stamp. DO YOUR FUCKING DILIGENCE.
Jesus man do the bare fucking minimum to support your assertions. you are disappointed cause you thought I was a right winger? you do THE EXACT SAME THING. BlckSurn and Jowilli do. make bald ass assertions, provide zero evidence, bitch I didnt do the research for you, either provide none or very shoddy evidence.
You're aping the language of your betters, and fooling no one. You write and argue like a child.
The quotations were confirmed in the transcript. You then proceed to bang your big spoon against the high-chair because a character's profile -- in a visual medium -- was not read aloud. I provided a place to view the movie (for free), and then a website independently confirming my observation (and upvoted by over a hundred users).
It's supremely ironic you would say "DO YOUR FUCKING DILIGENCE" when I provided everything you need to follow up on observations made six months ago. If you're interested, you can watch the film. Hell, I'm pretty sure they don't go after Voight's character until the second half, so you can watch *half* of the film.
Jesus man do the bare fucking minimum to support your assertions...
You've beclowned yourself multiple times in this thread. You're terrible at arguing your points. It's little more than a lie to say I've made "bald assertions and provided zero evidence." I am sorry that you do not know how quotations work, how arguments work, or even possess minimum awareness of your low-functioning smooth brain. Almost any reasonable person would say I've gone above and beyond by providing everything you need. share
You're aping the language of your betters, and fooling no one. You write and argue like a child.
coming from you that is hilarious
The quotations were confirmed in the transcript. You then proceed to bang your big spoon against the high-chair because a character's profile -- in a visual medium -- was not read aloud. I provided a place to view the movie (for free), and then a website independently confirming my observation (and upvoted by over a hundred users).
WHERE. holy fuck this isn't hard. PROVIDE EVIDENCE. a page, a quotation. ANYTHING. you dont just give someone a 100 page+ transcript and say "see here!" tell me you never went to university without telling me you never went to university.
no the upvote CONFIRMS people liked that bit of trivia. its not a measure of its truthfulness. it literally says "X amount of people find this interesting". wow you are the pinnacle of retardation. this one line alone should disqualify you from every human activity that requires basic functioning and a brain.
in a visual medium -- was not read aloud. I provided a place to view the movie (for free), and then a website independently confirming my observation (and upvoted by over a hundred users).
so why the fuck did you provide a transcript? you are trying to have your cake and eat it. claim you provided the evidence while chastising me for being stupid and looking for the evidence in your source that isnt there. do you know how dumb you sound? I have the film, provide a fucking timestamp then. How fucking stupid do you think that sounds. "here's my evidence! its in the transcript! I won't tell you where though! oh you looked in the transcript? ya its not there its in the film! This sent how supporting evidence works. it shouldn't be a where's Waldo where I have to figure out the fucking mystery and solve it myself and look everywhere and be sent on a wild goose chase only to find out "nah it aint in the transcript"
It's supremely ironic you would say "DO YOUR FUCKING DILIGENCE" when I provided everything you need to follow up on observations made six months ago. If you're interested, you can watch the film. Hell, I'm pretty sure they don't go after Voight's character until the second half, so you can watch *half* of the film.
NO RETARD. go back to school. thats like be saying "all you would have to do is go find evidence of Sasquatch, its on the internet. go find it. again, yell me you never went to university without telling me you never went
You've beclowned yourself multiple times in this thread. You're terrible at arguing your points. It's little more than a lie to say I've made "bald assertions and provided zero evidence." I am sorry that you do not know how quotations work, how arguments work, or even possess minimum awareness of your minimum low-functioning smooth brain. Almost any reasonable person would say I've gone above and beyond by providing everything you need.
"beclowned" lol tell me you are trying sooo hard to sound smart without telling me..
yes ive asked for evidence. you keep doing this fucking chase where you provide no specific evidence
-heres a transcript! oh its not in the transcript!
-its in the movie! oh I won't provide a time stamp!
-its in the trivia! its true because people upvoted it! (no it isnt, thats a like button not a fact confirmation button)
the only clown is you.
4 comments on, and not a single specific piece of evidence. share
You're unbelievably daft. As you know, web browsers have a search function. You do not have to read through a hundred pages to confirm quotations.
its not a measure of its truthfulness. it literally says "X amount of people find this interesting". wow you are the pinnacle of retardation. this one line alone should disqualify you from every human activity that requires basic functioning and a brain.
It has likely been viewed by thousands of eyes, hundreds of movie trivia nerds, and you don't think one of them would have made a correction? Moreover, it was produced independently of my own observation.
That you cannot see how this shifts the burden of proof testifies to your inability to argue rationally. I did not create a thread declaring, "Jon Voight's character was born on 9/11." I added observations to a thread of observations. That I returned six months later and provided sourcing speaks to my good character. That you cannot read or follow through speaks to yours. My initial response shifts the burden of proof onto you. If you're so emotionally invested in this odd, no-stakes coincidence, then follow through. You seemingly understand this when you went to some Villains wiki.
Alternatively, you could have Googled: "Jon Voight born 9/11 Enemy of the State"
NO RETARD. go back to school. thats like be saying "all you would have to do is go find evidence of Sasquatch, its on the internet. go find it. again, yell me you never went to university without telling me you never went
This is a reasonably good example of a false comparison. You're comparing an extraordinary claim with a mundane one. If I say I'm five feet, eleven inches tall -- well, that's within a normal height range for adult males in the US. If I said I were nine feet tall, then I could reasonably be expected to provide some kind of evidence.
It amuses me that you think you're at all competent at arguing your points. share
You're unbelievably daft. As you know, web browsers have a search function. You do not have to read through a hundred pages to confirm quotations.
ya im talking about the transcript. which I did search for key words. damn you that clown retard?
It has likely been viewed by thousands of eyes, hundreds of movie trivia nerds, and you don't think one of them would have made a correction? Moreover, it was produced independently of my own observation
same goes for wikipedia. viewed by even more people and yet its riddled with mistakes. the movie trivia isnt meant to be accurate, its "interesting things" people post. again besides that one spot, NOWHERE ELSE on the internet confirms what you say. fuck you are retarded.
LOLLLLLLLLLLLL you dont know how a burden of proof works hahahahahaahahhaahhahahahahahah
YOU made the claim
"The Jon Voight character is born on Sept. 11th."
I asked for evidence. Idgaf if you came back a year later, or 2. none of that is relevant. idgaf if you added the comment to a thread about another topic. none of that matter. as you really this fucking stupid? where you think burden of proof has an exception of its about a comment in a thread?
Again. tell me you didnt go to university without telling me you didnt go to univerisity.
My initial response shifts the burden of proof onto you. If you're so emotionally invested in this odd, no-stakes coincidence, then follow through. You seemingly understand this when you went to some Villains wiki.
NO IT DOESNT. you made the claim, YOU BACK IT UP. it has nothing to do with emotional investment. wow man you are fucking stupid.
yes your sources were insufficienct. you've had to be brought kicking and screaming to supply anything! and you still cant do the bare mimumum. again YOU HAVE THE BURDEN OF PROOF RETARD.
BURDEN OF PROOO
The burden of proof (Latin: onus probandi, shortened from Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat) is the obligation on a party in a dispute to provide sufficient warrant for its position.
This is a reasonably good example of a false comparison. You're comparing an extraordinary claim with a mundane one. If I say I'm five feet, eleven inches tall -- well, that's within a normal height range for adult males in the US. If I said I were nine feet tall, then I could reasonably be expected to provide some kind of evidence.
It amuses me that you think you're at all competent at arguing your points.
CLAIMS REQUIRE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE. you dont even know what a burden of proof is and your re going to lecture me on evidence. . are you really this fucking stupid kid? the doctor missed some severe brain development issues
so for the FIFTH TIME. provide fucking evidence you clown share
ya im talking about the transcript. which I did search for key words. damn you that clown retard?
This only demonstrates that you cannot read for comprehension. Like so many others on this forum, you hope sheer tenacity can compensate for an inability to think and communicate clearly. Your posts look like ransom notes.
In your original unlettered reply, you wrote, "im curious?"
Maybe the question mark was *not* in error. I've provided you with all of the necessary resources. I went above and beyond. Again, you can just Google the exact phrase I gave to you and you will be presented with a screenshot from the film showing the character's date of birth. That is, if you actually are curious.
I should also publicly mention that you sent me an abusive DM saying that I'm "borderline retarded for real." I invite you to ask people to compare our posts. I do not think an independent assessment will come out in your favor. share
so 6 posts in and you still couldn't provide
-a link or source
-a timestamp
just stay off movie chat please. you are borderline retarded and it shows. you dont know what a burden of proof is. you are an idiot and would fail a grade 10 class.
I've provided multiple sources: The film, an IMDb page, and a Google phrase that will take you to a screenshot. You ineptly compared this to searching for Sasquatch.
Not only did I pass "grade 10 class," I went all the way. Piled higher and Deeper (yeah, I'm a professor at a university). Again, I'd invite you to have independent third parties read my posts and decide between "borderline retarded high school dropout" and professor. You're just acting out emotionally because you've unambiguously got the worst of this rather one-sided beatdown. You must know deep inside that you're not fooling anyone.
But, yeah, I'll lay off Movie Chat. All the real intellectuals here -- braindead white nationalists, empty-headed Reaganites, Trump worshipers. I will say again, one thing they have in common, yourself included, is tirelessness. It's masochistic.
you provided an imdb trivia page you claimed did something it didnt. you said its a verified page of people confirming it on the imdb trivia,. which it isn't. I disproved that nonsense.
yes I compared to to Sasquatch because the same standards of evidence apply. again you keep showing you have no formal education in this topic. whether its from the more extraordinary claims like Sasquatch exists, that you own a lion, or have a Lamborghini in your garage. or you have a 100$ bill in your pocket, or just bought a new puppy. if YOU MADE THE CLAIM, YOU HAVE THE BURDEN OF PROOF. if you will not provide evidence it is not on me to break into your home and confirm you own said puppy. welcome to philosophy 101 you pathetic kid.
This is why i called you retarded. You don't know what a burden of proof is. you keep exposing that. you showed that when you tried to say because it was someone else's thread and you came back a year later you don't have it.
HAHAHAH keep failing though kid. there are 15 year old children far more intelligent than you. sad you aren't man enough to admit you got the burden of proof wrong. you will always be a retarded little bitch
You do not know how to argue, read, or write. Sad.
The same standards "to to Sasquathch" do not apply. You said you were curious. I gave you all of the resources needed to confirm the observations at hand. What do you think the odds are that my observation aligns with one on IMDb's trivia page and seen by likely hundreds of people? There's a convergence of truth. If I had said he was born on 9/11, but other sides, such as the IMDb trivia page, noted otherwise, THEN, if I cared, I'd be burdened with producing over-riding evidence.
What happened is you just failed to read my reply for comprehension, I said that you were stupid, and then you decided to leave no doubt.
I've told you precisely what to Google to find a screenshot. You can do it. Maybe you have done it, but you prefer to make a complete fool out of yourself. Repeatedly. Or you enjoy ostrich-like behavior. I don't know who you think you're deceiving with your taunts.
yes the same "extraordinary evidence" of Sasquatch is not needed. although thats more a clever saying than an actual standard of evidence. BUT either way the burden of proof is still with you. which you did not meed!
what are the odds that a publicly editable trivia section of IMDB has an errors? quite freaking high.
all you had to do was provide a time stamp in the film, or a page that has a screen shot.
its an incredibly low burden. which you couldn't even do.
enjoy your poor functioning brain and stupidity. im not taunting, its all true. you are flagrant idiot and retarded bitch.
Try, for once, to think about this rationally. If I claimed I sighted Sasquatch, would you take me at my word? No, because it's an extraordinary claim. If I said I watched Enemy of the State, and the chief villain was born on 9/11, would you demand a photograph of the character's long-form birth certificate? You're mad. Also, keep in mind that multiple sites confirm my sighting, and that the film is available for you to present contrary evidence. This shifts the burden on to you, the "curious" party.
I do not need a time stamp; that's unreasonable. I have a post from a trusted party (myself six months ago), and confirmation from multiple other sites (one of which has a screenshot that you can Google (for the fourth time)).
The only value of your epistemologically-challenged posts is that at least time spent on this site is not time spent shooting up a grammar school in an incel rage.
You're doubling down on stupidity by saying the IMBb trivia page's errors are "quite freaking high." OK, then demonstrate that *this* is in error. Simple. Then demonstrate multiple other errors. You seem to have little understanding of how a burden of proof works beyond mouthing a rule of thumb that you do not understand.
If I were to, in passing, say that someone went to China, and you asked, in all of your wisdom, "What is China?" and I responded, "China's a country." I would not be tasked with proving that China is a country that actually exists because I made the claim. Why? Because it's well-established that China exists, even if I've never personally been there. The burden would be on you to demonstrate that the idea of China is some kind of mass delusion, or something else.
"Try, for once, to think about this rationally. If I claimed I sighted Sasquatch, would you take me at my word? No, because it's an extraordinary claim. If I said I watched Enemy of the State, and the chief villain was born on 9/11, would you demand a photograph of the character's long-form birth certificate? You're mad. Also, keep in mind that multiple sites confirm my sighting, and that the film is available for you to present contrary evidence. This shifts the burden on to you, the "curious" party. "
1. take my word is not good evidence
2. yes if you claim something is the case, I will demand, in this case, some visual evidence (a screenshot), a site with the screenshot or AT THE VERY LEAST a time stamp. you couldn't even. do the fucking basics
3. no MULTIPLE SITES DID NOT CONFIRM YOUR SIGHTING. you gave me a transcript that said no such thing. you then gave me a trivia site. so far we are at 1.
4. it doesn't shit the burden you dumb fuck
"I do not need a time stamp; that's unreasonable. I have a post from a trusted party (myself six months ago), and confirmation from multiple other sites (one of which has a screenshot that you can Google (for the fourth time)). "
DID YOU REALLY just say you are a source that confirms yourself. omg the retardation won't stop hahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahhaha.
if there's a fucking screenshot. PROVIDE EVIDENCE. how fuck your tiny brain struggles with the burden of proof I see
"You're doubling down on stupidity by saying the IMBb trivia page's errors are "quite freaking high." OK, then demonstrate that *this* is in error."
here let me do what the retard (you did). "I have a post from a trusted party (myself today) which confirms I am right (circular like you did). and go google it! it's easy!!! I provided evidence! google it!"
see how fucking retarded I sound. that is exactly what you did. also I don't have to demonstrate THIS is an error. we know people make mistakes, we know a non peer reviewed site where anyone can add anything they want may have errors. again, YOU HAVE THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO DEMONSTRATE WHAT YOU SAID
"If I were to, in passing, say that someone went to China, and you asked, in all of your wisdom, "What is China?" and I responded, "China's a country." I would not be tasked with proving that China is a country that actually exists because I made the claim. Why? Because it's well-established that China exists, even if I've never personally been there. The burden would be on you to demonstrate that the idea of China is some kind of mass delusion, or something else."
did you really just compare a commonly known thing, that everyone learns about growing up (looking at an atlas) or anyone who listens to the news (china is brought up often) to a random piece of claimed movie trivia.i have seen pictures of china and video. I have met people form china. I have seen video content from china. I've hear world leaders speak from china and about china. so you really compared this to a movie trivia piece you havent fucking demonstrated... LOLLLLL. again, tell me you never took a philosophy class without telling me you never took a philosophy class.
buddy. you are legit retarded
see how fucking retarded I sound.
I do; everyone does. share
I quoted your "logic". so im glad you admit finally you are retarded :)
hHAHAHAH thats all you had to respond with
thank you fo0r the concession finally you fucking retard.
amazing how I provided more evidence for the burden of proof, than you did this entire time of your claim.
that is fucking sad man. I don't know what country you re form but sometimes parents opt for abortions in the case of serious retardation.. im not saying they should have but...
"I don't know what country you re form but sometimes parents opt for abortions in the case of serious retardation"
This is comically ironic, considering you established yourself as an idiot in this thread. The person you've been arguing with doesn't have any "burden of proof" when stating something which is independently verifiable by anyone. That's like saying someone has the "burden of proof" if they state that, e.g., Richard Nixon was the thirty-seventh President of the United States, which is something only an idiot would do. In this case, it was stated that:
"The Jon Voight character is born on Sept. 11th."
And it's independently verifiable simply by, you know, watching the movie (which you already should have done before opening your trap about it, obviously). You could even just listen to the movie, because his date of birth is mentioned in the dialog as well as being shown onscreen. Gene Hackman's character said:
"Reynolds, Thomas Brian, born nine-eleven, forty..."
And this was shown on the screen at the same time:
https://i.imgur.com/qweg4op.jpg
wow!! finally an actual source/ link with evidence. thats all ia asked for the entire time!! and im the idiot?
another dumb fuck who doesnt understand the burden of proof
"and im the idiot?"
Yes, you are, and I already explained why.
"another dumb fuck"
Comical Irony Alert: Part II
"who doesnt understand the burden of proof"
Comical Irony Alert: Part III
Once again, clodpate:
The person you've been arguing with doesn't have any "burden of proof" when stating something which is independently verifiable by anyone. I decided to prove you wrong in order to establish your idiocy, not because I or anyone else actually has a burden of proof in this case.
Furthermore, you're on a forum that's specifically for the discussion of the movie "Enemy of the State." Why are you trying to discuss a movie that you haven't even seen, and especially, why were you arguing with someone who has seen the movie, about the contents of the movie, when you haven't even seen it? It's because you're an idiot, like I said. Specifically, you're the special variety of idiot known as an ultracrepidarian.
"The person you've been arguing with doesn't have any "burden of proof" when stating something which is independently verifiable by anyone. I decided to prove you wrong in order to establish your idiocy, not because I or anyone else actually has a burden of proof in this case."
WRONG. ANYONE making any positive claim has the burden of proof. holy fuck kid stay off MC and go back to school. you didnt prove me wrong. I never said it was not true. for the fucking 10th time, I asked for evidence. you FINALLY provided evidence that this clown would not. you really lack reading comprehension huh?
I have seen it idiot. multiple times. care to try again. this time dont embarrass yourself.
LOL tell me you are trying way too hard without telling me you are trying way too hard. include "clodpate" in your post haha.
take of the fedora. take off the trench coat. shave the neckbeard
Here you go. Discussion over.
https://www.reddit.com/r/MovieDetails/comments/9e1q0h/enemy_of_the_state_1998_a_film_about_the/
wowww someone reasonable who provided a source! thank you so much. it is his birthday!
see how easy that was clowns?
"WRONG. ANYONE making any positive claim has the burden of proof."
No, dumbass, there is no burden of proof for known facts, given that facts need no proof simply by virtue of being facts, obviously. There's no such thing as a fact for which a burden of proof exists, since, if something is yet to be proven, it couldn't be a fact, by definition. Jon Voight's character's birthday being on 9/11 falls into the category of a known fact because it's in a movie that was seen by millions of people and for which millions of copies exist, allowing it to be easily verified.
"holy fuck kid stay off MC and go back to school."
Comical Irony Alert: Part IV
"you didnt prove me wrong."
Yes, I did, simpleton.
"I never said it was not true."
You said:
"umm where did you get this from? its not based on a novel with more background details and no such mention for birthdate is made in the film. im curious?"
You were wrong, i.e., there is such a mention of his birthdate in the movie and I proved it, therefore I proved you wrong, obviously.
"for the fucking 10th time, I asked for evidence. you FINALLY provided evidence that this clown would not."
See above, moron. Also, you had no logical grounds for disputing his statement in the first place, since he was stating a known fact and those aren't open to dispute.
"you really lack reading comprehension huh?"
Comical Irony Alert: Part V
"I have seen it"
You think that improves your position? In reality, it's more evidence of your idiocy. You've just admitted that you've watched a movie multiple times, in which a character's DOB of 9/11 is stated in the dialog and shown onscreen at the same time, yet you said, "no such mention for birthdate is made in the film." LOL at that, and LOL at you, too, you know, while I'm at it.
"this time dont embarrass yourself."
Comical Irony Alert: Part VI, you know, coming from the established idiot who denied a known fact, and who thinks that known facts require proof, even when he's admittedly already seen and heard the proof, i.e., watched the movie, multiple times, and who then suggested that the person who proved him wrong embarrassed himself (LMAO). Not only have you embarrassed yourself, but you've done so more thoroughly than anyone I've ever seen either here or on the old IMBb forums.
"LOL tell me you are trying way too hard without telling me you are trying way too hard. include "clodpate" in your post haha. take of the fedora. take off the trench coat. shave the neckbeard"
Your non sequitur is dismissed, mooncalf.
this characters birthday in a random film isn't a "known fact"..
wow you wrote all that gishgalloping nonsense./ you may have admitted "im an idiot who doesn't understand the burden of proof" and saved yourself time
good job!
tell me you are a cringe neckbeard loser without telling me you are a cringe neckbeard loser.
continually write "Comical Irony Alert"
without knowing what that term means.
its not comically ironic that someone wouldn't have 100% recollection of a film, particularly something as small as a 2 second shot showing something.
man you are retarded
"this characters birthday in a random film isn't a "known fact".."
Yes, it is a known fact, since it's part of a movie that's been seen by millions of people and there are millions of copies in existence, and this is a message board specifically for discussing this movie which you claim to have seen multiple times. A fact which is known by millions of people is absolutely a "known fact," obviously.
"wow you wrote all that gishgalloping nonsense./ you may have admitted "im an idiot who doesn't understand the burden of proof" and saved yourself time"
Your non sequitur is dismissed, numbnuts, and again, there is no burden of proof for facts, because facts, by definition, have already been proven. Also:
Comical Irony Alert: Part VII
"tell me you are a cringe neckbeard loser without telling me you are a cringe neckbeard loser. continually write "Comical Irony Alert""
Your non sequitur is dismissed, road apple.
"without knowing what that term means."
Comical Irony Alert: Part VIII
"its not comically ironic that someone wouldn't have 100% recollection of a film, particularly something as small as a 2 second shot showing something."
I didn't say that was comically ironic, buffoon, I said that that, along with other things, establishes you as an idiot. A non-idiot never would have disputed the character's 9/11 DOB in the first place, because, knowing that his recollection could be mistaken, he would have made sure he had his facts straight first. You didn't make sure you had your facts straight before opening your trap, which is the very definition of "ultracrepidarian."
"man you are retarded"
Comical Irony Alert: Part IX, you know, coming from the moron who has been proven wrong, and who thinks that known facts need to be proven (LOL).
Also, LOL at you sending me a private message, weirdo, and LOL at you replying twice to one post even though you didn't even come close to reaching the character limit in your first reply.
You + an idiot = 2 idiots.
hahaha the retard keeps going. no it being in a movie for a second does not make it common knowledge. wow when you will deny basic philosophy because you rent man enough to admit you made a mistake.
you did say it was comically ironic. you posted a number beside it with the point.
I am sorry you were born retarded. but educational facilities are available for free.
a random small event in a film is not "common knowledge"
try again. this time don't embarrass yourself.
"hahaha the retard keeps going."
Comical Irony Alert: Part X
"no it being in a movie for a second does not make it common knowledge."
Reading Deficiency Alert
I said "known fact," dipshit, not "common knowledge." And yes, a fact that is known by millions of people is blatantly, obviously, a known fact.
"wow when you will deny basic philosophy because you rent man enough to admit you made a mistake."
Your non sequitur is dismissed, airhead.
"you did say it was comically ironic. you posted a number beside it with the point."
No, I didn't, dumbass, and this is...
Reading Deficiency Alert: Part II
... for you.
"I am sorry you were born retarded. but educational facilities are available for free."
Comical Irony Alert: Part XII
"a random small event in a film is not "common knowledge""
Reading Deficiency Alert: Part III (see above)
"try again. this time don't embarrass yourself."
Comical Irony Alert: Part XIII
Also, since you didn't address the fact that you opening your trap on this subject without first getting your facts straight establishes you as an idiot (specifically, an ultracrepidarian), your tacit concession on that matter is noted.
And LOL at you sending me another PM. I don't read PMs from established idiots, Slow Doug.
the cringe lord cant stop. so you don't know what burden of proof is?
honestly are you mentally deficient? I will feel bad
you down know what ultracrepidarian"
means either LOLLLLL.
buy that "logic": anyone who asks for evidence in any debate is an ultracrepidarian and shouldn't talk on the subject. I never claimed to have knowledge on the subject. thats WHY I ASKED FOR EVIDENCE> holy fuck you are stupid.
also by your "logic" any event in a movie seen by millions is common knowledge. even if it flashes on screen for an instance. this is patently untrue. more people in the world havent seen the film than have. its impossible to know but very possible most Americans havent even seen the film. let alone memorized every single scene. let alone memorized every single instance that was on camera for a second. this isn't how common knowledge works./ you sound like an idiot.
kid you are retarded
Common knowledge
https://www.usg.edu/galileo/skills/unit08/credit08_04.phtml
What you don't have to cite
You don't have to cite some things because they're common knowledge and are not considered the work of any particular person.
Examples of common knowledge are:
There are four seasons in the year.
There 365 days in a year.
The U.S. entered World War II after the bombing of Pearl Harbor.
The state bird of Georgia is the brown thrasher.
How can you tell if something is common knowledge?
Common knowledge is information that the majority of people either know or can find in a number of sources. Common knowledge is factual information that is beyond dispute. Sure, you might not remember (or ever have known) what Georgia's state bird is, but you can easily look it up in an almanac, encyclopedia, the state's Web site, or other resource.
meanwhile retard maximrecoil
"yaaaaa that includes a one second shot in a random film"
LOOOOLLLL its obvious who didnt attend higher education
"so you don't know what burden of proof is?"
There is no burden of proof for known facts, moron, because known facts, by definition, are already known to have been proven.
"honestly are you mentally deficient? I will feel bad"
Comical Irony Alert: Part XIV
"you down know what ultracrepidarian" means either LOLLLLL"
"noun: ultracrepidarian
a person who expresses opinions on matters outside the scope of their knowledge or expertise."
That's what you did, dullard. You proclaimed that "no such mention for birthdate is made in the film." And that was on a matter that was obviously outside the scope of your knowledge, since you were proven wrong.
"buy that "logic": anyone who asks for evidence in any debate is an ultracrepidarian and shouldn't talk on the subject."
You didn't just ask for evidence, dumbass, you said that "no such mention for birthdate is made in the film," and I proved you wrong.
"I never claimed to have knowledge on the subject."
Yes, you did. You said you've seen the movie multiple times, and regardless of that, it doesn't matter whether or not you claimed to have knowledge on the subject, because you made an assertion about a subject which was proven wrong, which proves you made an assertion about something outside your scope of knowledge, which establishes you as an ultracrepidarian.
"also by your "logic" any event in a movie seen by millions is common knowledge."
Your bald-faced lie is dismissed. Again, I said nothing about "common knowledge," and since I've already told you that, at this point you're simply a liar. I said it's a known fact, which is not necessarily the same thing as "common knowledge." A known fact is any fact that's known by many people and which can easily be independently confirmed. For example, the facts presented on a typical game of Jeopardy on TV are known facts, but not common knowledge, because questions about common knowledge wouldn't make for a very challenging game, obviously.
"its impossible to know but very possible most Americans havent even seen the film. let alone memorized every single scene... blah blah blah"
Only ultracrepidarians make assertions about scenes in movies they haven't seen or don't remember (you know, like you did), because doing that sort of thing is what defines someone as an ultracrepidarian in the first place. If you don't know what you're talking about (and I've proven that you didn't), then keep your mouth shut.
"kid you are retarded"
More comical irony from the established ultracrepidarian.
"Sure, you might not remember (or ever have known) what Georgia's state bird is, but you can easily look it up in an almanac, encyclopedia, the state's Web site, or other resource."
And likewise, you can easily look it up by watching the movie. Again, there is no burden of proof for known facts because known facts, by definition, are already known to have been proven.
""yaaaaa that includes a one second shot in a random film""
It wasn't just a shot; Gene Hackman's character also said the birthdate aloud at the same time, as I've already told you, and it's not a "random film," it's the movie that's the topic of this very message board that you're posting on.
"LOOOOLLLL its obvious who didnt attend higher education"
Comical Irony Alert: Part XV
LOL you still dont know how the burden of proof works. should I get you more links explaining it?
share"LOL you still dont know how the burden of proof works. should I get you more links explaining it?"
Your non sequitur (which is also Comical Irony Alert: Part XVI) is dismissed, Special Ed, and since you presented no arguments (not that any of your previous attempts at arguments were in any way valid), your tacit concession on the whole matter is noted.
I literally sent a link explaining the burden of proof. aww the retard cant even read. this is sooo sad.
remember when were sooo dumb you said it was an accepted fact because "millions saw the film" and there's no burden of proof.
LOL do you work at macdonalds or Harveys? because you clearly have no education.
you don't even know what comic irony is
Your entire post is another non sequitur, simpleton; consider it dismissed out of hand. Also, your tacit concession remains noted.
To summarize:
You said:
"no such mention for. birthdate is made in the film."
I proved you wrong.
You also claimed that the guy who stated a known fact had the burden of proving that known fact (LOL). A known fact is already known to have been proven, moron, otherwise it couldn't possibly be a known fact. There is no burden of proof for known facts, obviously.
The funniest part of all this is: despite the fact that you were proven wrong and established as an ultracrepidarian in the process, and think that things which have already been proven need to be proven (LOL, again), you still think you're in a position to appraise the intelligence of other people. This is the source of all the comical irony in your asinine posts. You are dumb as a bag of hammers and you don't even realize it.
Verbose. Try to write better, ideally on another site.
sharethat is fair I could have been more succinct. sometimes you gotta explain the same thing twice with these clowns. I can see you had nothing since I was correct about the burden of proof. Maybe get a life or man up when you can actually intellectually address someone's arguments rather than a slimey cheap jab
shareIt definitely made me think about the capabilities of government surveillance via the NSA/CIA. The American movie-going public was still very naive about this at the time. Now we have drone surveillance that can go where satellites can't.
shareNow WS is an official enemy of the American ppl id say yeh it was def ahead of its time
share