What Moore showed was real footage, not re-creations, but there is a big jump from real footage to facts. People who appeared in Moore's film objected that the footage he shot of them was used out of context.
A lie of omission is still a lie. Using real footage for your own spin is as bad or worse than using a re-creation. On 9/11/06, Gruss wrote: > > > gMoney wrote: > > It's only a double standard to the people who let Moore get away with > his > > bullshit. I never did. Both are demonstrably fictitious in parts, or > twist > > contexts to convey a message totally different than the original event. > > > > There's a big difference: Moore's film was shot documentary style - he > was showing actual facts. You can argue that he arranged them to make > a point, but what he showed were facts. (yes, yes, I've seen all of > the disputes and never seen any worth any amount of time) > > This is a re-creation with actors that purports to be a *historical* > recreation when it's not. > > Moore's was an arrangement of facts (thus no disclaimers), this is fraud. > > (btw - I in no way endorse nor support Moore or his film, just making the > point) > > -- --------------- Robert Munn www.funkymojo.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Introducing the Fusion Authority Quarterly Update. 80 pages of hard-hitting, up-to-date ColdFusion information by your peers, delivered to your door four times a year. http://www.fusionauthority.com/quarterly Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:215161 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
