|
He may hope that that this film "proves to be as accurate as it seems," but the best indicator of future behavior is past behavior(thanks Dr. Phil), and where Mr. Ebert "discovered that some of his 'facts' were wrong, false or fudged" previously in Moore's work, he will find it so again, as these things are already being pointed out.
The question is, if Mr. Moore has such a good case to make why does he, at any time under any circumstance, find it necessary to present facts which are 'wrong, false or fudged'. Mr. Ebert believe those things diminish his point of view, the point of view which Moore claims to be voicing, and Ebert is right; those things ARE an issue. In fact he strengthens his point of view by admitting the intellectual dishonesty instead of ignoring it or explaining it away because he agrees with the rest of it.
Mr. Ebert is laying it on the line even-handedly, which is much more than can be said for Mr. Moore.
[ 06-18-2004, 02:46 PM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]
__________________
[img]\"http://home.carolina.rr.com/orthanc/pics/Spinning%20Hammer%20Sig%20Pic.gif\" alt=\" - \" />
|