On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 14:16:04 +0900, Ernest Schaal
<eschaal@max.hi-ho.ne.jp> wrote:

>in article 6e8vd0t99niece210p2eccjqt2f5bebt04@4ax.com, Raj Feridun at
>rferid@NOSPAMyahoo.co.jp wrote on 6/28/04 1:52 PM:
>
>> On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 13:01:23 +0900, Ernest Schaal
>> <eschaal@max.hi-ho.ne.jp> wrote:
>> 
>>> Sorry, but no one but is is arguing that it is the "truth." Instead, he is
>>> using well-established movie techniques to present a picture that is no more
>>> "accurate" than the recent political ads by Bush and Kerry.
>> 
>> No, I think the smoke and mirrors act is being attempted by the right
>> who want to somehow discredit the allegations made without actually
>> responding to them.
>
>Raj,
>
>I think you are really going overboard there, reading conspiracy theory into
>everything.
>
>Look back to what I really said, instead of what you have twisted it to say
>so that it will fit into your stereotypical dogma.
>
>I said that "One does not go to Moore for 'Truth,' one goes to him for
>entertainment." Even Moore hasn't claimed that it was the "Truth." Only
>Gerry has made that claim.

What is "it"? Like I said in my other message to you I do not deny for
one second that Moore is not a partisan with a clear agenda nor a
skilled filmmaker capable of weaving movie images artistically.

My problem with the Moore-bashers is that they are not actually
addressing the allegations Moore makes against Bush in this film no
matter how he made them or presented them visually.

It would be so simple to completely dismiss this movie AND Moore if
they could only call him a liar.

>I can't comment on the movie more specifically than I did, because I haven't
>seen it. But then, neither have you (if your word is to believed). I find it
>extremely dogmatic on your part to state that my remark that his movie was
>no more or less truthful than other political ads by Republicans or
>Democrats was somehow "discredit the allegations made without actually
>responding to them."

I've seen the allegations in the media just not the film itself.

>The only parts of the film that I have seen were the clips about Bush going
>on vacation (as if all other presidents didn't go on vacation) and the clip
>of the little girl walking peacefully in pre-war Iraq (as if Iraq under
>Saddam was idyllic). Neither clip gave me any indication that this work was
>any more "real" or "true" (whatever you think that means) than his previous
>work

Bush's vacation time is an interesting fact. He set a record his first
year in office with the most vacation time of any President in
history. Yes, all Presidents take vacation time just not as much as
Bush apparently. (He narrowly beat out his father for the record)

>I was not the one that said it was "full of lies." That was your
>mischaracterization of my remarks. I simply said of him what he has already
>said about himself. Are you REALLY saying that he was resorting to name
>calling against himself?

He never said he lied in this film. Quite to the contrary he said he
only told the truth.

Raj