Stacia wrote:
Stacia, your response is misplaced in the thread.
You seem to be responding mainly to me, the
poster one previous to the one you responded to,
so, I'll respond.
> Anim8rFSK <ANIM8Rfsk@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
> > "Madkaugh" <madkaugh@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> No 33 Secretary wrote:
> >>
> >> > http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1164856/posts
gives
specific
> >> > lies by Moore, and cites sources.
>
> Holy ****, you're attempting intellectual bullying with FREEPER posts?
I can't respond; that's directed to Terry; one post
previous to mine.
> >> I'll own up to backing off of using Michael Moore as a referential
> >> source. I've read enough negative about him personally and bias
> >> in his material to consider him questionable. I still read him, but
> >> I want confirmation elsewhere.
>
> Shouldn't be a problem as far as "F911" goes; there was nothing in the
> movie I hadn't seen/heard elsewhere prior to its release. I couldn't
> tell you about "BfC" or "R&M" though.
That's my point; I'll look for other sources.
> I've been trying to find your original question about what you wanted
> confirmation on though... or are you just saying in general you will
> question everything Michael Moore says?
I agree with most of what Michael Moore says, but he is not
a credible source. He, uhm, misrepresents. Rarely out and
out lies, but comes awful damn close.
So, no I wouldn't question everything Michael says, I'd just
look elsewhere for corroborating evidence, and quote the
second source, not Michael.
> I suggest you might question everything said by anyone
> with a known bias, not just Moore.
What makes you think I don't?
To be fair, everyone is biased.
> If you're going to question Moore then you should also question those
who posted
> in the Freeper threads, too.
Terry is a self-proclaimed asshole. That's not relevant
to his point.
> Get all the facts.
Ditto? Terry's link is hardly the only negative web article
about Michael Moore's veracity.
> Stacia
MadKaugh
|
