reallycarlaost/emobank-single-binary · Datasets at Hugging Face

text stringlengths 1 593 ⌀	label float64 0 3
The key is knowing where to go.	0
Membership in a Bottle!	2
The definitive gift of friendship for any AMC member to give.	0
It’s a starter kit to sharing the outdoors.	1
Your friends will love you for it and you’ll be helping AMC and its stewardship of the environment with each gift you give.	1
Membership in a Bottle includes: ·32-oz. loop-top Nalgene water bottle ·12-month AMC individual membership	0
York by land or by water.	3
The authors of Nature Walks and Quiet Water have checked out countless locations, culling the best so you don’t have to take a long drive to a disappointing hike or paddle—you can rely on their reporting to guarantee a great trip every time.	1
APPALACHIAN MOUNTAIN CLUB members take recreation time seriously and know the importance of good trail information.	1
Induded in your gift set: Nature walks in and around New York City Quiet Water Canoe Guide: New York	1
From seaside trails in Acadia National Park to Baxter Park’s vast wilderness, you’ll encounter a host of wildlife, untrammeled hiking trails rimmed with towering pine, and more than 100 crystal-clear lakes, ponds, and thundering rivers.	1
AMC’s Quiet Water Canoe Guide: Maine offers a chance to experience unspoiled quiet places, to observe wildlife in their natural habitat, to paddle and completely unwind.	3
When you hit the trail, AMC Maine Mountain Guide and AMC Guide to Mount Desert Island and Included in your gift set: AMC Maine Mountain Guide, 7th edition AMC Guide to Mount Desert Island and Acadia National Park Quiet Water Canoe Guide: Maine	1
Moore is a professional filmmaker -- he concentrates on maximum impact of each of the statements he cites, and to accomplish that effect, uses subtle interludes instead of long-winded introductions.	0
Not surprisingly, much of the criticism of Moore's film is misguided or outright wrong, often vastly more inaccurate than Moore's work itself.	3
This is a common technique, but because conservative readers are not familiar with the basics of filmmaking, they believe critics who claim that he is "distorting" the interview.	3
What he does is standard filmmaking practice.	0
The same goes for the interview which follows.	3
Moore's critics would expect us to have him quote Heston in his entirety, have him present fully the PR that the NRA has used to justify its rally in Denver for reasons of "balance".	3
The NRA was fully aware of the scandal it would cause through its rally and decided to push on because they believed to have enough media support to successfully do so.	0
They were right.	1
You claim that there was "no way to change location, since you have to give advance notice of that to the members, and there were upwards of 4,000,000 members."	0
10 days are more than enough to give advance warning of a change in location or date, had the NRA really wanted to.	3
That does not change the fact that they did just that.	3
Moore presents the most important part of the speech to back up this point and ignores the fluff.	3
This is what good documentary filmmaking is about.	1
And here the critics again ignore important evidence:	2
When Heston mentions the mayor of Denver, the crowd boos loudly.	2
Heston maganimously holds up a hand to read the mayor's letter (only to explain in detail why he chose to ignore the request -- not mentioning at all the reasons you have given!)	2
This booing by the crowd, not mentioned with a single word in your transcript or your article, shows that the crowd was fully aware of the controversy they would cause by coming to Littleton after children were being killed there -- and they effectively said "Fuck you".	2
"Fuck you"	2
4) The Kayla Rolland case.	3
The rally took place on October 17, the shooting on February 29.	0
Again, standard filmmaking techniques are interpreted as smooth distortion:	3
It is brilliantly, if unethically, done."	3
As noted above, the "from my cold dead hands" part is simply Moore's way to introduce Heston.	0
Did anyone but Moore's critics view it as anything else?	0
He certainly does not "attribute it to a speech where it was not uttered" and, as noted above, doing so twice would make no sense whatsoever if Moore was the mastermind deceiver that his critics claim he is.	3
Concerning the Georgetown Hoya interview where Heston was asked about Rolland, you write: "There is no indication that [Heston] recognized Kayla Rolland's case."	2
This is naive to the extreme -- Heston would not be president of the NRA if he was not kept up to date on the most prominent cases of gun violence.	2
Even if he did not respond to that part of the interview, he certainly knew about the case at that point.	0
Regarding the NRA website excerpt about the case and the highlighting of the phrase "48 hours after Kayla Rolland is pronounced dead":	2
This is one valid criticism, but far from the deliberate distortion you make it out to be; rather, it is an example for how the facts can sometimes be easy to miss with Moore's fast pace editing.	0
His documentary is full of subtle humor, jaw-dropping dialogue and dark contrasts.	2
The reason the sentence is highlighted is not to deceive the viewer into believing that Heston hurried to Flint to immediately hold a rally there (as will become quite obvious), but simply to highlight the first mention of the name "Kayla Rolland" in the text, which is in this paragraph.	3
Unfortunately, because the zooming is rather fast, it is easy to miss the rest of the sentence, so as you correctly note, some viewers got an incorrect impression.	3
It would have been fair for Moore to point out this possible misinterpretation on his website.	1
However, the claim of deliberate distortion is ludicrous for several reasons:	3
"before he came to Flint"	0
In the excerpt from said interview, we can see that it is from March.	1
All in all, it is an accurate portrayal of America's gun and violence culture.	3
If Moore wanted to deceive his viewers, why would he say this, and show the month the interview was published?	2
b) Why should Moore leave the words "Clinton is on the Today Show" visible in the text, which is necessary to correctly interpret the highlighted part?	0
I reviewed the sequence several times and it is perfectly possible to see this text without pausing.	3
c) Both the "soccer mom" interview and the sequences showing the NRA rally make no effort to distort the fact that this rally happened months after the fact.	3
The camera lingers on Bush/Cheney posters, and the protestor is quoted as saying that "we wanted to let the NRA know that we haven't forgotten about Kayla Rolland".	3
"we wanted to let the NRA know that we haven't forgotten about Kayla Rolland"	3
You make the hysterical claim that the interview "may be faked" (on the basis that no name is shown for the interviewee), but if Moore had faked it, why the hell should he put this sentence in the protestor's mouth, which directly contradicts the conclusion that the rally happened hours after Kayla's death?	0
It also raises questions about America's foreign policy of recent decades, questions which have been all but ignored by Moore's critics.	2
Why did Moore, the masterful deveiver, not edit this sequence out?	0
This makes no sense.	2
Opinions may vary on how tasteless it was for Heston to hold a pro gun rally on the location of the nation's youngest school shooting months after the fact, but this sequence of "Bowling" is without doubt the most unfair to Heston.	2
The claims of deliberate distortion don't hold up when viewing the whole scene, though -- as "Hanlon's Razor" states, one should never attribute to malice what can be attributed to incompetence.	2
The somewhat inept editing of the NRA press release has led some viewers to wrong conclusions, which is unfortunate, but Moore's critics have no interest in viewing the matter fairly.	3
In any case, at no point does Moore make a false statement, in contradiction to claims by critics that his documentary is "full of lies".	0
"Having created the desired impression, Moore follows with his Heston interview."	1
You accuse Moore so often of changing the chronology, yet you have no problems changing it yourself.	3
The Heston interview is at the very end of the movie.	0
On your webpage, you state that "Moore's resolution is questionable.	1
"Moore's resolution is questionable.	3
After all, early in the movie he discards the possibility that playing violent video games and watching violent flicks can cause violence -- because Canadians like, and Japanese positively love, those.	0
These people do not feel the need to express sympathy, or to think about ways to avoid such incidents, but they feel the need to assert their "rights" and to look for quick, simple answers -- as Busch states, gun owners wanted to "hang [the child] from the highest tree".	2
This is all not mentioned by critics of Moore's movie, who claim to be objective.	0
Perhaps the best example of the paranoia surrounding Moore's film is your sub-essay "Is the end of the Heston interview itself faked?	3
Moore answers a simple question -- how could the scene have been filmed -- with a simple answer: two cameras.	3
From this, you construct an obscure conspiracy of "re-enactment": "For all we can tell, Moore could have shouted 'Hey!' to make Heston turn around and then remained silent as Heston left."	3
"For all we can tell, Moore could have shouted 'Hey!' to make Heston turn around and then remained silent as Heston left."	2
'Hey!'	2
Even if your "re-enactment" theory is true (and I see no evidence that you have actually tried to ask the people involved in the filmmaking for their opinion), this itself is not unethical, and you have no evidence whatsoever that Moore has done anything unethical here, just like you have no evidence that Moore has unethically removed parts of the interview.	3
You use standard filmmaking technique as a basis to construct bizarre conspiracies which sound plausible to the gullible reader, without ever providing any evidence for the implicit or explicit claims of fraud and distortion.	3
6)Animated history of the US. Of course the cartoon is highly oversimplified, and most critics consider it one of the weakest parts of the film.	3
But it makes a valid claim which you ignore entirely: That the strategy to promote "gun rights" for white people and to outlaw gun possession by black people was a way to uphold racism without letting an openly terrorist organization like the KKK flourish.	3
Did the 19th century NRA in the southern states promote gun rights for black people?	0
I highly doubt it.	3
But if they didn't, one of their functions was to continue the racism of the KKK.	3
This is the key message of this part of the animation, which is again being ignored by its critics.	3
If violent movies and violent videogames cannot cause violence -- then how can newscasts about violence do so?"	2
7) Buell shooting in Flint.	2
You write: "Fact: The little boy was the class thug, already suspended from school for stabbing another kid with a pencil, and had fought with Kayla the day before".	3
"Fact: The little boy was the class thug, already suspended from school for stabbing another kid with a pencil, and had fought with Kayla the day before"	3
This characterization of a six-year-old as a pencil-stabbing thug is exactly the kind of hysteria that Moore's film warns against.	2
It is the typical right-wing reaction which looks for simple answers that do not contradict the Republican mindset.	3
The kid was a little bastard, and the parents were involved in drugs -- case closed.	2
But why do people deal with drugs?	3
Because it's so much fun to do so?	1
It is equally well known that the so-called "war on drugs" begun under the Nixon administration is a failure which has cost hundreds of billions and made America the world leader in prison population (both in relative and absolute numbers).	2
But the real cause here are not the drugs themselves, but poverty and the "war on drugs".	0
This is a faulty generalization.	3
Had the boy's mother not been shipped to a "welfare to work" program, she might at least have had some time to spend with her son.	2
Virtually every child psychologist knows that mother/child bonding is essential for the development of empathy and social abilities, the awareness of the consequences of one's actions, and the learning of conflict resolution by non-violent means.	2

The key is knowing where to go.

0

Membership in a Bottle!

2

The definitive gift of friendship for any AMC member to give.

0

It’s a starter kit to sharing the outdoors.

1

Your friends will love you for it and you’ll be helping AMC and its stewardship of the environment with each gift you give.

1

Membership in a Bottle includes: ·32-oz. loop-top Nalgene water bottle ·12-month AMC individual membership

0

York by land or by water.

3

The authors of Nature Walks and Quiet Water have checked out countless locations, culling the best so you don’t have to take a long drive to a disappointing hike or paddle—you can rely on their reporting to guarantee a great trip every time.

1

APPALACHIAN MOUNTAIN CLUB members take recreation time seriously and know the importance of good trail information.

1

Induded in your gift set: Nature walks in and around New York City Quiet Water Canoe Guide: New York

1

From seaside trails in Acadia National Park to Baxter Park’s vast wilderness, you’ll encounter a host of wildlife, untrammeled hiking trails rimmed with towering pine, and more than 100 crystal-clear lakes, ponds, and thundering rivers.

1

AMC’s Quiet Water Canoe Guide: Maine offers a chance to experience unspoiled quiet places, to observe wildlife in their natural habitat, to paddle and completely unwind.

3

When you hit the trail, AMC Maine Mountain Guide and AMC Guide to Mount Desert Island and Included in your gift set: AMC Maine Mountain Guide, 7th edition AMC Guide to Mount Desert Island and Acadia National Park Quiet Water Canoe Guide: Maine

1

Moore is a professional filmmaker -- he concentrates on maximum impact of each of the statements he cites, and to accomplish that effect, uses subtle interludes instead of long-winded introductions.

0

Not surprisingly, much of the criticism of Moore's film is misguided or outright wrong, often vastly more inaccurate than Moore's work itself.

3

This is a common technique, but because conservative readers are not familiar with the basics of filmmaking, they believe critics who claim that he is "distorting" the interview.

3

What he does is standard filmmaking practice.

0

The same goes for the interview which follows.

3

Moore's critics would expect us to have him quote Heston in his entirety, have him present fully the PR that the NRA has used to justify its rally in Denver for reasons of "balance".

3

The NRA was fully aware of the scandal it would cause through its rally and decided to push on because they believed to have enough media support to successfully do so.

0

They were right.

1

You claim that there was "no way to change location, since you have to give advance notice of that to the members, and there were upwards of 4,000,000 members."

0

10 days are more than enough to give advance warning of a change in location or date, had the NRA really wanted to.

3

That does not change the fact that they did just that.

3

Moore presents the most important part of the speech to back up this point and ignores the fluff.

3

This is what good documentary filmmaking is about.

1

And here the critics again ignore important evidence:

2

When Heston mentions the mayor of Denver, the crowd boos loudly.

2

Heston maganimously holds up a hand to read the mayor's letter (only to explain in detail why he chose to ignore the request -- not mentioning at all the reasons you have given!)

2

This booing by the crowd, not mentioned with a single word in your transcript or your article, shows that the crowd was fully aware of the controversy they would cause by coming to Littleton after children were being killed there -- and they effectively said "Fuck you".

2

"Fuck you"

2

4) The Kayla Rolland case.

3

The rally took place on October 17, the shooting on February 29.

0

Again, standard filmmaking techniques are interpreted as smooth distortion:

3

It is brilliantly, if unethically, done."

3

As noted above, the "from my cold dead hands" part is simply Moore's way to introduce Heston.

0

Did anyone but Moore's critics view it as anything else?

0

He certainly does not "attribute it to a speech where it was not uttered" and, as noted above, doing so twice would make no sense whatsoever if Moore was the mastermind deceiver that his critics claim he is.

3

Concerning the Georgetown Hoya interview where Heston was asked about Rolland, you write: "There is no indication that [Heston] recognized Kayla Rolland's case."

2

This is naive to the extreme -- Heston would not be president of the NRA if he was not kept up to date on the most prominent cases of gun violence.

2

Even if he did not respond to that part of the interview, he certainly knew about the case at that point.

0

Regarding the NRA website excerpt about the case and the highlighting of the phrase "48 hours after Kayla Rolland is pronounced dead":

2

This is one valid criticism, but far from the deliberate distortion you make it out to be; rather, it is an example for how the facts can sometimes be easy to miss with Moore's fast pace editing.

0

His documentary is full of subtle humor, jaw-dropping dialogue and dark contrasts.

2

The reason the sentence is highlighted is not to deceive the viewer into believing that Heston hurried to Flint to immediately hold a rally there (as will become quite obvious), but simply to highlight the first mention of the name "Kayla Rolland" in the text, which is in this paragraph.

3

Unfortunately, because the zooming is rather fast, it is easy to miss the rest of the sentence, so as you correctly note, some viewers got an incorrect impression.

3

It would have been fair for Moore to point out this possible misinterpretation on his website.

1

However, the claim of deliberate distortion is ludicrous for several reasons:

3

"before he came to Flint"

0

In the excerpt from said interview, we can see that it is from March.

1

All in all, it is an accurate portrayal of America's gun and violence culture.

3

If Moore wanted to deceive his viewers, why would he say this, and show the month the interview was published?

2

b) Why should Moore leave the words "Clinton is on the Today Show" visible in the text, which is necessary to correctly interpret the highlighted part?

0

I reviewed the sequence several times and it is perfectly possible to see this text without pausing.

3

c) Both the "soccer mom" interview and the sequences showing the NRA rally make no effort to distort the fact that this rally happened months after the fact.

3

The camera lingers on Bush/Cheney posters, and the protestor is quoted as saying that "we wanted to let the NRA know that we haven't forgotten about Kayla Rolland".

3

"we wanted to let the NRA know that we haven't forgotten about Kayla Rolland"

3

You make the hysterical claim that the interview "may be faked" (on the basis that no name is shown for the interviewee), but if Moore had faked it, why the hell should he put this sentence in the protestor's mouth, which directly contradicts the conclusion that the rally happened hours after Kayla's death?

0

It also raises questions about America's foreign policy of recent decades, questions which have been all but ignored by Moore's critics.

2

Why did Moore, the masterful deveiver, not edit this sequence out?

0

This makes no sense.

2

Opinions may vary on how tasteless it was for Heston to hold a pro gun rally on the location of the nation's youngest school shooting months after the fact, but this sequence of "Bowling" is without doubt the most unfair to Heston.

2

The claims of deliberate distortion don't hold up when viewing the whole scene, though -- as "Hanlon's Razor" states, one should never attribute to malice what can be attributed to incompetence.

2

The somewhat inept editing of the NRA press release has led some viewers to wrong conclusions, which is unfortunate, but Moore's critics have no interest in viewing the matter fairly.

3

In any case, at no point does Moore make a false statement, in contradiction to claims by critics that his documentary is "full of lies".

0

"Having created the desired impression, Moore follows with his Heston interview."

1

You accuse Moore so often of changing the chronology, yet you have no problems changing it yourself.

3

The Heston interview is at the very end of the movie.

0

On your webpage, you state that "Moore's resolution is questionable.

1

"Moore's resolution is questionable.

3

After all, early in the movie he discards the possibility that playing violent video games and watching violent flicks can cause violence -- because Canadians like, and Japanese positively love, those.

0

These people do not feel the need to express sympathy, or to think about ways to avoid such incidents, but they feel the need to assert their "rights" and to look for quick, simple answers -- as Busch states, gun owners wanted to "hang [the child] from the highest tree".

2

This is all not mentioned by critics of Moore's movie, who claim to be objective.

0

Perhaps the best example of the paranoia surrounding Moore's film is your sub-essay "Is the end of the Heston interview itself faked?

3

Moore answers a simple question -- how could the scene have been filmed -- with a simple answer: two cameras.

3

From this, you construct an obscure conspiracy of "re-enactment": "For all we can tell, Moore could have shouted 'Hey!' to make Heston turn around and then remained silent as Heston left."

3

"For all we can tell, Moore could have shouted 'Hey!' to make Heston turn around and then remained silent as Heston left."

2

'Hey!'

2

Even if your "re-enactment" theory is true (and I see no evidence that you have actually tried to ask the people involved in the filmmaking for their opinion), this itself is not unethical, and you have no evidence whatsoever that Moore has done anything unethical here, just like you have no evidence that Moore has unethically removed parts of the interview.

3

You use standard filmmaking technique as a basis to construct bizarre conspiracies which sound plausible to the gullible reader, without ever providing any evidence for the implicit or explicit claims of fraud and distortion.

3

6)Animated history of the US. Of course the cartoon is highly oversimplified, and most critics consider it one of the weakest parts of the film.

3

But it makes a valid claim which you ignore entirely: That the strategy to promote "gun rights" for white people and to outlaw gun possession by black people was a way to uphold racism without letting an openly terrorist organization like the KKK flourish.

3

Did the 19th century NRA in the southern states promote gun rights for black people?

0

I highly doubt it.

3

But if they didn't, one of their functions was to continue the racism of the KKK.

3

This is the key message of this part of the animation, which is again being ignored by its critics.

3

If violent movies and violent videogames cannot cause violence -- then how can newscasts about violence do so?"

2

7) Buell shooting in Flint.

2

You write: "Fact: The little boy was the class thug, already suspended from school for stabbing another kid with a pencil, and had fought with Kayla the day before".

3

"Fact: The little boy was the class thug, already suspended from school for stabbing another kid with a pencil, and had fought with Kayla the day before"

3

This characterization of a six-year-old as a pencil-stabbing thug is exactly the kind of hysteria that Moore's film warns against.

2

It is the typical right-wing reaction which looks for simple answers that do not contradict the Republican mindset.

3

The kid was a little bastard, and the parents were involved in drugs -- case closed.

2

But why do people deal with drugs?

3

Because it's so much fun to do so?

1

It is equally well known that the so-called "war on drugs" begun under the Nixon administration is a failure which has cost hundreds of billions and made America the world leader in prison population (both in relative and absolute numbers).

2

But the real cause here are not the drugs themselves, but poverty and the "war on drugs".

0

This is a faulty generalization.

3

Had the boy's mother not been shipped to a "welfare to work" program, she might at least have had some time to spend with her son.

2

Virtually every child psychologist knows that mother/child bonding is essential for the development of empathy and social abilities, the awareness of the consequences of one's actions, and the learning of conflict resolution by non-violent means.

2