re: ot and politics: getting back to aisling on mm

 Posted on 7/14/2004 by to

>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,

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

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


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