in article m0cvd05s9lq92o55e7lptdr48u0va95t4k@4ax.com, Raj Feridun at
rferid@NOSPAMyahoo.co.jp wrote on 6/28/04 2:48 PM:

> On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 14:18:23 +0900, Ernest Schaal
> <eschaal@max.hi-ho.ne.jp> wrote:
> 
>> We are talking about whether or not his presentation of the "facts" is
>> objective, and represents the concept of "The Truth," as Gerry has used the
>> term.
> 
> OK, fair enough. Go see the film then forget the slick packaging and
> trick photography as you call it and boil the movie down to its basic
> allegations THEN respond to them. I still have yet to see anyone do
> this in anything I've read thus far. They complain about how Moore
> manipulates the viewer but they don't go so far as to say he lies
> because apparently he doesn't.
> 
> At it's core I believe Moore has a lot of good material to build a
> glossy campaign ad over in this film. I'm not ignorant enough to say
> he did not make the film with an agenda nor that he isn't clearly a
> left-winger. 
> 
> Raj

Raj,

As you know, the movie isn't playing in Japan, and might never play here.
Therefore, it is extremely dishonest of you to require someone to see this
particular movie of a self-proclaimed provocateur before expressing doubt
that this movie is not "THE TRUTH." (Notice that Gerry said it was THE
TRUTH, rather than saying that it has grains of truth.)

I responded the Gerry's message because I thought it was ridiculous to
believe that "THE TRUTH" would be found in any work by someone having a
definite agenda, and I continued posting to your responses because I thought
it was ridiculous of you paint my simple cynicism as being part of a big
conservative plot.

Right now I am willing to give you the same benefit of doubt and objectivity
that you have given to me (i.e., none).