in article h3evd0lco61c50komf3c95snfn7dv9qeak@4ax.com, Raj Feridun at
rferid@NOSPAMyahoo.co.jp wrote on 6/28/04 3:29 PM:

> 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
>


This is the last message I will post in this thread in response to you. The
reason why I will not post further in response to you is that my impression
gained of you in the past few messages is that you are so dogmatic in your
beliefs as to be dishonest and irrational.

One classic example of your dishonesty is that you repeat your claim that I
wrote that the film in question is "full of lies." I NEITHER SAID IT AND I
NEVER IMPLIED IT. To continue with that fiction shows a complete dishonesty
and lack of morality on your part. I said that it was not "THE TRUTH" (i.e.,
objective portrayal of reality as it really exist). There is a big
difference between what I said and what you continue to state I said. I will
NOT give you any benefit of the doubt and assume your statement was based
upon your ignorance or your lack of familiarity with the English language.

Another classic example of your dishonesty is your call that I see the
movie, since you already know that I am in Japan (from my email address) and
that the movie hasn't come here.

Overall, you are not a nice person, or even a decent person, and you do not
deserve any further comment.