Quote:
|
So, butchering and editing speeches to say something completly different, implying incorrect facts about an organization's history, giving muddled facts, outright lying about timelines are small degrees of inaccuracies?
|
completely different? i think not, he didn't butcher and edit the speeches.. he cut to boil down his point.. it still remains that heston either never knew that his pro-gun rallies came just after a massacre or didn't think it was related and moore was asserting that it WAS related.. you don't like the assertion fine say so, don't discredit the concept based on some editing slices.
Quote:
|
He went further than that. Morre did outright lie. There is no getting around that.
|
WHERE?
Quote:
|
This is somehow more significant than implying that the NRA started the KKK
|
they didn't?
moore implied it.. maybe even asserted it.. i don't have the information to prove him incorrect.. please help me out and point me to some counter info on the formation of the NRA
Quote:
|
Actually, proving Moore lied and muddled facts that are at the very heart of the segment does change it.
|
change it YES.. discredit it..NO.
i agree that filmmaking in general grants some liberties.. moore has some exagerations that i woulndt mind going over in specific cause i'm interested in learning the truth but blanket statements are not constructive to the huge problems we face. moore put some accusations out there that can be hard to defend but i didn't and still don't see any outright lies. how many lies does it take to discredit a film? which are on purpose and which are on accident? one or two? how many might be tweaked? i think that a couple "outright lies" or even one 'direct lie' would do it for me.. which one is the outright lie? implications are implications not lies, lets not confuse the two.