in article 5js3e0lg5dicnapac86l3lhh9f9huserlp@4ax.com, Raj Feridun at
rferid@NOSPAMyahoo.co.jp wrote on 6/30/04 8:04 AM:

> On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 21:43:22 +0900, Ernest Schaal
> <eschaal@max.hi-ho.ne.jp> wrote:
> 
>> Moore is the issue, the same way Limbaugh is the issue. They both give
>> slanted presentations that present distorted views of the world. His
>> distortions are the issue, in the same way Limbaugh's distortions are an
>> issue.
> 
> Why do you keep dancing around the issue?
> 
> You say "distortions", I say "lies", you say "to-MAY-to", I say
> "to-MAH-to", let's call the whole thing off.

There is a big difference between distortions and lies. Maybe English isn't
your primary language, maybe you are merely sloppy in your usage of the
English language, maybe you are not intelligent enough to know the
difference. The term "lie" has a stronger negative connotation than the term
"distortion," and usually implies an outright falsehood.

For instance, if I were to make a short film of clips of you actually
smiling and of people actually being tortured, your smiling and the torture
would not be "lies," since those events actually occurred, but the
juxtaposition of those clips would give the distorted impression that you
were smiling because of the torture. It would not be a "lie" but it would be
a "distortion."

> Let the Fahrenheit-bashers specifically and factually correct Moore
> where he has told untruths in his film. Is there any easier way for me
> to explain to you what my issue is here?

I haven't seen the film, and have no plans to do so, so I cannot comment on
specific distortions, but apparently the article by Hitchen (or whatever his
name is) did that. Your responds was simply to label him as an extremist.
 
> I will help you out: Moore apparently added weekends into his figure
> for Dubya's record-breaking vacation time for his first year in
> office. Apparently weekends don't count as "vacation". The problem is
> even without the weekends he wins the all-time Presidential vacation
> record hands down. As nitpicky as that "error" may be I saw it listed
> in a negative review of the film. Seems a bit like reaching for
> straws.

What about the idyllic of children living under the Saddam regime?

He is not only slanted, he is heavy-handedly so. Maybe if he was more
competent, he would be more effective, but then if he less heavy-handed you
might not be such a fan of his. Rush Limbaugh fans seem to light Rush's
heavy-handed approach.

You keep up the illusion that Moore's films are not slanted and biased. The
Doonesbury comic strip has a definite bias, but that comic strip has humor
and intelligence. Garry Trudeau is gifted at what he does, Moore is not.

If Moore was not so mediocre in his propaganda, it would be more excusable.
S. M. Eisentein was a communistic propagandist, but he was gifted and he
defined helped cinema for future generations, Moore is simply a hack.
 
>> By the way, I am not a Moore-hater, I simply don't think he is very good as
>> a film director, and I don't think he even tries have the objectivity of a
>> journalist. I don't hate Lambaugh either, but I don't he is very good
>> either.
> 
> I don't hate Limbaugh either. I think he's a bit of a hypocrite since
> he's on record, for example, saying he promoted physically deporting
> illegal drug users out of America and it turns out he's an illegal
> pillpopper himself. I used to enjoy listening to his show back home in
> New Jersey even though I didn't often agree with him on a lot of
> political issues.

I find nothing to indicate that Moore is any worse or any better than
Limbaugh. From articles in the Japan Times, it appears that personally, he
is a jerk, who treats people poorly. But, his being an lousy human being
does not make him a poor film director, making poor films make him a poor
film director.

I don't hate Moore and I don't hate Limbaugh. I just don't waste my time
watching or hearing their junk.

> 
>>> I do not automatically believe everything anyone tells me, thank you.
> 
>>> For my part I'm waiting for my DVD screener download to complete
>>> before finishing viewing since the cam is not particularly great
>>> quality.
> 
>> You are using a bootlegged copy? That sounds neither legal nor moral.
> 
> It isn't legal. If it's any comfort to you I promise to destroy my
> screening copy after watching it though and if I enjoy it fully intend
> to purchase it/ view it in the theater in the future.
> 
> Unfortunately at the moment it is my only available option to see it.

Unfortunately at the moment you see it is my only available option? How
about flying to the US or UK and see it there? Or how about waiting until it
is on video? No, that would imply that your instant gratification was less
important than the law or morality.

That says a lot about your sense of morality, doesn't it?