Re: [OT] Fahrenheit 9-11 was Re: Mazes and Monsters

Malachias Invictus wrote:
> "No 33 Secretary" <terry.notaniceperson@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
> news:Xns983B65569C3B4taustingmail@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
>>"Malachias Invictus" <capt_malachias@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
>>news:vOKdnTCHStalFZjYnZ2dnUVZ_tqdnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>
>>>"Green Clogs" <GC45@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>news:TcfNg.17066$o42.12598@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>
>>>>Malachias Invictus wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Green Clogs" <GC45@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>>>news:9fcNg.19368$dl.7038@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Malachias Invictus wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Ubiquitous" <weberm@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>>>>>news:mfadnSE3i4PdR5nYnZ2dnUVZ_umdnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>That does not negate the fact that "Fahrenheit 9-11" was a
>>>>>>>>fictional movie,
>>>>>>>>not a do***entary.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>Upon what evidence are you basing that claim?  Be specific.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Upon what eviodence do you base the claim that the sun is hot?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Nice dodge.  Let me know when you grow the balls to actually answer
>>>>>the question.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>That was the answer.
>>>
>>>No, it wasn't.  It was a question.
>>>
>>>
>>>>If you're too dim to understand it,
>>>
>>>I understand exactly what you are doing, coward.  It is a common
>>>rhetorical trick.
>>>
>>>
>>>>that's your problem.
>>>
>>>Let me know when you grow the balls to actually answer the question.
>>>
>>
>>http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1164856/posts
gives specific
>>lies by Moore, and cites sources.

 From the cite Terry quotes:

"Moore’s editing technique of the election night segment is typical of 
his style: all the video clips are real clips, and nothing he says is, 
formally speaking, false."

"If you listen only to what Moore says during this segment of the 
movie—and take careful notes in the dark—you’ll find he’s got his facts 
right."

So much for the allegations of *lies,* which is where the real beef is. 
  A lie is something that you know isn't true like, say, declaring that 
Iraq has weapons of mass destruction.

> I have read these before.  I agree with a few of them.  I especially
agree 
> that Michael Moore presented quite a few facts in a deceptive way.  Then

> again, some are outright stupid.  For example, Deceit 8: why the **** do
I 
> care what the principal thinks of what Bush did?  Deceit 54 is even more

> stupid, and is in fact not a deceit at all.

Indeed, while some are valid, many of them fail the sniff test.  For 
example:

Deceit 16 is itself deceptive.  Moore never claimed there were only 2 
names blacked out on the do***ent.  Moore's point is that, between 2000 
and 2004, someone went into the do***ent and blacked out Bath's name 
when it hadn't been before.  What happened between 2000 and 2004, an 
election year, I wonder, that required such a thing.

Deceit 36 says that Saddam Hussein threatened America by harboring 
terrorists who killed Americans in the past.  By that reasoning, we were 
guilty of the same thing when we pardoned General I****i and his 
scientists for his biowar experiments so we could get our hands on his
data.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731

However, not even this article can point to a LIE as such.  This 
contradicts several actual lies by Bush and his ilk.

>>You will now lie, or simply refuse to even admit this was offered,
>>because you cannot refute any of it.
> 
> 
> You really need to learn to read the claim, wingnut.  You still have not

> shown that this film is not a do***entary.
> 

Or that it tells any lies.  But this is Terry we're talking about, 
hardly a fount of erudition or rectitude.