[B5JMS] OT and politics: Getting back to Aisling on MM

[b5jms at cs.columbia.edu]

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: hansenm at sbcglobal.net (Michael)
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2004 04:33:42 +0000 (UTC)
Lines: 33

jmsatb5 at aol.com (Jms at B5) wrote in message news:<20040708060424.23098.00001518 at mb-m07.aol.com>...
> I've seen Moore's film, and my sense of it is this: about 70% of the film
> consist of very solid and well-researched facts that have been reported and
> confirmed by a variety of respected sources, then further vetted by a battery
> of attorneys.
> 
> The remaining 30% is the analysis of those facts.  You may or may not agree
> with some of those analyses.
> 
> But the facts themselves are damning enough.  That 70% is one hell of a 70%.
> >  jms

Excuse me mr Straczynski, but your "sense of it is this" do you just
take everything you hear from Michael Moore as absolute truth without
researching what he says.

After researching what Michael Moore says in his movie, you find out
that about 35% is out right lies, 35% are distortions of the facts,
and 30% is analysis of of those lies and distortions.

You say that the movies "facts" have been "confirmed by a variety of
respected sources." Can you name even one of those respected sources. 
Can you name one independent source, a source that doesn't come from a
left wing ideologe point of view.  No you can't, because it doesn't
exist.

A good source to uncover all of the lies and distortions in Michael
Moore's movie is <http://moorewatch.com/> there you can see how
everyting in Michael Moore's movie is either a lie or a distortion of
the truth.

Michael Hansen, First Lieutenant, USAF


=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: jmsatb5 at aol.com (Jms at B5)
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2004 09:43:38 +0000 (UTC)
Lines: 38

>You say that the movies "facts" have been "confirmed by a variety of
>respected sources." Can you name even one of those respected sources

Well, let's see...there are the documents provided by the Pentagon concerning
Bush's military service (since you identify yourself as a member of the USAF
you must put some credibility in the Pentagon), the Washington Post which
stated that Bush spent about 42% of the time prior to 9/11 on vacation, a
statistic that has not been challenged by anyone, and there's film -- unedited
-- of Bush that speaks volumes, and nobody's said it's CGI.

You say that --

>5% is out right lies, 35% are distortions of the facts,
>and 30% is analysis of of those lies and distortions.

-- but you don't say what those lies are.  You cite very specific breakdowns,
so you could perhaps delineat those figures for us a bit more.  Becaue if
you're going to be mathematical in your allegation, I'm going to ask you to be
equally mathematical in showing your homework.  Specifiy what those are,
please.

Because for all the complaints from some quarters about the film, and the
general, vague statements of "it's filled with lies," nobody has yet come forth
to specify what those falsehoods *are*.  I woud love to hear your specificities
here.

Or are you just repeating what others have said to you?

 jms

(jmsatb5 at aol.com)
(all message content (c) 2004 by synthetic worlds, ltd., 
permission to reprint specifically denied to SFX Magazine 
and don't send me story ideas)