I saw this film and I never got the impression that 100% of the doors were unlocked. Anyone who did is extrapolating to conclusions on their own.

And logically, why would Moore cooperate with people who appeared to be trying to make a reputation and most likely money off of his fame and/or notorioty?

Like many of your posts, you seem to see a lot more in the article that is actually stated. Comments like "scenes were left on the cutting room floor" mean nothing - show me any film where that isn't true, and I'm not defending Moore, it is just that there is no substance in the article.

Or maybe he saw what you didn't because he didn't make up his mind to cut pieces out and toss them on the floor before he read the article.

When you cut pieces from a documentary in order to give a biased view of the whole picture it loses legitimacy. If you cut enough and add a bit it becomes a piece of fiction. That’s what happened with Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11.

Didn't see Fahrenheit 9/11 and the article addressed "Columbine". Fahrenheit 9/11 is only mentioned in the first line as a Moore film. And I repeat, probably all documents cut pieces and leave them on the floor. Nothing in the article shows that there was a deliberate editing to create a bias - that is ASSUMED by the poster and the two men in the article. The assumption demonstrates the poster's bias not Moore's.

In this specific instance, Moore's desire was to show the viewers the reluctantcy these people had to give him an interview. When people are reluctant to talk about a potential problem, they are viewed as hiding evidence and take on the image of guilty. Now you say editing is done in every documentary, true, nobody can deny this point. However, it is deceitful when what is shown is not representative to that which happened.

If I made a documentary about your life, only to leave out the US Govt. plot to drive you insane, would that seem like I was trying to misrepresent your situation? Afterall, I only left the scene on the cutting room floor. . .right?

__________________
He who makes a beast of himself gets rid of the pain of being a man.
Dr. Samuel Johnson

Or, perhaps you could make a documentary on him that only portrays the big plot against him. Then the viewers would get the same impression of him that most of us have gotten..

Yes...you sum it up well.

The Ann Coulter 'faggot' comment from this past week was widely condemned by conservatives (as it should be). She passed it off as "geez, you guys just don't have a sense of humor." Hmmm, maybe for the lowest possible common denominator.

Either way, it's just ridiculous to suggest Moore's editing techniques are not used to form an opinion.

__________________
He who makes a beast of himself gets rid of the pain of being a man.
Dr. Samuel Johnson

Kix you're mind is so closed that nothing can get in. But I take exception to "most of jus have gotten" statement. You might want to go to this post and learn a little truth. Mind Control: America's Secret War

By the way, when I watched the Cathy O'Brien video, I can tell she is being truthful by certain things she says and how she states it. Being "Christian", you should really be concerned about her statement that a world of mind control would be a soulless world. I have often stated that the US government people are soul stealers. And Christ warned us when he said, "Fear not those that can kill you, but rather fear those who would steal (or kill) your soul." FEAR THE US GOVERNMENT - they are soul stealers!

And you might want to listen to what Mark Phillips says in response to the question as to why "they" just don't kill him and Cathy. His response is "Do you believe in God". And that is the only answer I have for why I am still alive. And I get asked that question a lot. But then I doubt if you would believe that "your God" would protect people from the evils of this government.

An added point, I came across a cross reference that refers to seeing
Cathy O'Brien in a government made film about mind control. Validation of her statements.

I was not suggesting that, I was stating that the reasons given in the article offer no proof of that - it requires extrapolation by the bias of the poster.