EG > While I totally agree that Moore is biased, Fahrenheit 9/11 is different. I don't care about how he presents it (that's what he gets bashed for), it's the footage that counts. And that's where the argument stops: you can discuss over and over the way he presents it, but when there's footage of someone saying "I don't like Egaladeist" (just an example... it's not in Fahrenheit 9/11 ), I could manipulate that and say "maybe he doesn't like deists" and then present the footage. But that doesn't change anything about the fact that someone said "I don't like Egaladeist". Interpret it any way you want to (and that's what Moore did... he interpreted the footage his way), but the footage is still there. Moore based all of his commentaries on articles (and most of his sources are mentioned). What's wrong with that?
If RoadClosed says in this thread "Egaladeist is a brat", and I quote that and say "Roadclosed said that Egaladeist is a brat", would you attack me for saying that you are a brat? I didn't say that, did I? And that's exactly what the deal is with Fahrenheit... Moore doesn't say it; his sources do.


Oh, and stop saying stuff about movies you haven't seen... it doesn't add anything to the credibility of what you say