Re: Mazes and Monsters

Ken Andrews wrote:
> "Some Guy" <noemailformethanks@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote
> 
>>Ken Andrews wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 20:20:37 -0700, Some Guy
>>>
>>>>Ubiquitous wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>noemailformethanks@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Ubiquitous wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Wrong. "Fahrenheit 9-11" was a fictional movie, not a do***entary.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>So you think Bush was following a script when he sat there like a
deer 
>>>>>>in the headlights in that Florida school?  Who wrote his script, 
>>>>>>Cheney?
>>>>>
>>>>>Nice attempt to change the subject.
>>>>
>>>>You're the one that says F911 was fiction and not a do***entary. 
Since 
>>>>it contained the footage I mentioned, which is an incident that really

>>>>happened (along with innumerable others), how is that not a
do***entary, 
>>>>O He Whose Cranium Yearneth For The Tack Hammer?
>>>
>>>I must agree with Ubi in this case.  Just because a movie contains
>>>"real" footage does not make it a do***entary.
>>>
>>>Keep in mind that "The Battle of Britain" also contained footage that
>>>really happened, which does not make it a do***entary, either.
>>>
>>>I've never seen Fahrenheit 9/11, but if it shows scenes in the
>>>buildings or the aircraft that are "recreations" or "dramatizations"
>>>then yes, it's a piece of fiction.  It may be close or not to what
>>>actually happened, but it's still no longer a do***entary.
>>
>>Are you saying that a do***entary which uses computer animation to show,

>>for example, the sinking of the Titanic, is not a do***entay because of 
>>that animation?
> 
> 
> No, I'm saying that I expect a better quality of discourse out of you
than 
> you've just demonstrated.  Very disappointing. 
> 
> 

I would hate to disappoint my audience.  My ratings'll go down!