On Aug 10, 4:04Â pm, Immortalist
yahoo.com> wrote:> On Aug 9, 10:08 pm, turtoni
fastmail.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>> On Aug 10, 12:39 am, "bigflet...@
gmail.com"
gmail.com>
>> wrote:>
>
>>> At the end, you will see truth greater than the sum of its parts, (and
>>> its parts are perhaps the most challenging ever taking in every major
>>> controversy over the millenia.)
>
>>> If you find anything worthy of your attention for discussion after
>>> this, then go and play with your scalextric set.
>
>>> Im going to risk spoiling it for you by pointing to the 'last page',
>>> which actually hasnt been written.
>
>>> Make a comparison between what is already being introduced, and our
>>> dna molecule.
>
>>> I dare you !
>
>>> BOfL
>
>
>> Any transcription of this to post ot the newsgroup?
>
>> I found problems with the "waiting to be dead" idea right off the bat.
>
>> Too subjective. Too poetical. Unreal. Bullshit. Childish. Came to the
>> same conclusions as a teenager.
>
>> "A feature article in The Stranger has stated the film is based solely
>> on anecdotal evidence, while others have criticized it for using
>> unidentified, undated, and unsourced video news clips, voice-overs,
>> quotes, and book citations without page numbers. In a piece entitled
>> "Internet idiocy: the latest pandemic", an opinion piece in the
>> Arizona Daily Wildcat refers to the film as "internet bullshit",
>> saying that "witty sayings, fear tactics and a cool, assertive air all
>> enable them to convince the unwitting public of their points" while
>> another in the Irish Times called it "unhinged" and accused it of
>> offering nothing but "surreal perversions of genuine issues and
>> debates."
>
>> In the Gauntlet, Jordyn Marcellus wrote it was ironic that the film's
>> viewers "have blindly followed the documentary without doing their own
>> research." He states that, though the film is "well-edited and is
>> truly compelling", it "glosses over inconvenient facts," uses
>> "deceptive filmmaking" and that "for a film that rails against
>> deception, there's a lot of deception implicit in its creation."
>
>> On March 10, 2008, director Peter Joseph removed the "Clarifications"
>> section from the film's official site, a section which The Gauntlet
>> believed "alluded to dishonest filmmaking tactics that would otherwise
>> help to discredit the film." It was replaced by a Q&A Section that
>> "attempts to smack down" the film's critics."
>
>
> Ha, with all the cool books floating around on mainstream shelves, who
> needs a conspiracy movie? I was just reading this cute little book,
> about the tenth one like it.
Those that have been mislead by the same medium.
I have never come across anything so comprehensive, from the
astrological explaination of the regularly recycled messianic myths,
to the introduction of the purpose of silican chip implantation into
the population.
I somehow, dont think you have watched it based on your comments.
BOfL
> - Show quoted text -
