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

Malachias Invictus wrote:
> "No 33 Secretary" <terry.notaniceperson@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
> news:Xns983BA126F7F9taustingmail@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
>>"Malachias Invictus" <capt_malachias@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
>>news:Kq2dnYV0Ha1de5jYnZ2dnUVZ_tidnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>
>>>"No 33 Secretary" <terry.notaniceperson@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>news:Xns983B9ED7554B6taustingmail@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>
>>>
>>>>Main Entry: 1doc·u·men·ta·ry
>>>
>>>Selective argument-by-dictionary is pathetic even for you, Terry.
>>
>>If you claim it's a do***entary, then "do***entary" must have *some*
>>meaning.
> 
> 
> You are familiar with terms of art, are you not?
> 
> 
>>>Being objective is not a requirement for a do***entary film, moron.
>>
>>According to the common usage, yes, actually, it does.
> 
> 
> ...not according to Wikipedia, or any other source I have seen.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do***entary_film
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_film
> 
> You are welcome to counter with your sources, of course.
> 

And note F911's movie poster in the "Do***entary" page, not the 
"Propaganda" page.  While some do***entaries are propaganda as well, not 
all propaganda movies are nonfiction.  Some, such as Reefer Madness, are 
completely fiction.

That's the difference between "Fahrenheit 911" and "Red Dawn"; while 
both of them can be considered propaganda, the former is still a 
do***entary and non-fictional, while the latter is not a do***entary and 
is fictional.