That's kind of how I feel....we could argue over who's transgression is more egregious, but in the end, screw em both for being dishonest.
On 9/11/06, Robert Munn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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:215167 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
