Quote:
Originally Posted by fraleyight
I have tried to respond to all of smaccs wall of texts. If there is stuff you feel I didn't respond to I am happy too. Not that you are really seeking dialogue anyway because you know, we are shillz getting paid and all.
Yeah, you know, every time someone seems to encounter a long-post that is not convenient for their beloved position, it becomes a "wall-of-text" instead of a thoughtful essay.
Anyhow, if you feel compelled, read the Moore blog, he lays all of his points out very clearly and in an orderly fashion.
If you don't want to, then don't.
If it matters to you, I find his blog compelling and it fits right in line with what most of us have been stating from day one in this thread - it just comes from someone who is not biased (or if so, is biased in favor of law enforcement - but, no discernable bias seems present); is working through the documentary as he writes; is purposely ignoring outside sources for now (sound familiar? This is what I did so that I could have a baseline opinion based only on the documentary); and then he will research sources outside the doc.
Anyhow, it is exponentially more interesting and insightful than anything posted in this thread for the past number of weeks. The endless response to new questions with pat answers is really tiresome, especially PS's insistence that expert testimony establishes "fact" as if the expert was acting in the capacity of a judicial reference rather than as an advocate.