Changes

::Ah ha. You make the misrepresentation "how did Moore cheat the public that money?"  The text does not say that.  The text specifically says, "Michael Moore's films have bilked the public."  Now let me please explain.  Michael Moore's films are specifically inanimate objects, and not a person.  Very recently, I made a bank deposit which included a counterfeit $20 bill.  The $20 bill was confiscated, and I suffered the loss.  It was not my intent to bilk the bank, and I was not prosecuted.  But I personally was bilked out of $20--an inanimate object--not by the bank, and presumably not by the anonymous person who passed it to me who themselves likely did not know of its fraudulent origins.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:28, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

::Ah ha. You make the misrepresentation "how did Moore cheat the public that money?"  The text does not say that.  The text specifically says, "Michael Moore's films have bilked the public."  Now let me please explain.  Michael Moore's films are specifically inanimate objects, and not a person.  Very recently, I made a bank deposit which included a counterfeit $20 bill.  The $20 bill was confiscated, and I suffered the loss.  It was not my intent to bilk the bank, and I was not prosecuted.  But I personally was bilked out of $20--an inanimate object--not by the bank, and presumably not by the anonymous person who passed it to me who themselves likely did not know of its fraudulent origins.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:28, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:::How did that semantic argument change my point? In fact, I listed two other 'films', which by the definition of whoever wrote the bilking sentence, bilked the public. The movies simply portrayed Moore's representation of the subject at hand, through the use of weasel words and sarcasm (as per his usual style). My original objection to the sentence is still that "the movie did not bilk the public of their money" because it not a proper documentary. His failure to portray both sides of the story in Sicko (as an example) is used to convey Moore's viewpoint.

:::How did that semantic argument change my point? In fact, I listed two other 'films', which by the definition of whoever wrote the bilking sentence, bilked the public. The movies simply portrayed Moore's representation of the subject at hand, through the use of weasel words and sarcasm (as per his usual style). My original objection to the sentence is still that "the movie did not bilk the public of their money" because it's not a proper documentary. His failure to portray both sides of the story in Sicko (as an example) is used to convey Moore's viewpoint on the US Healthcare system. As he's the director, he has every prerogative to film his movies in whatever way he wants.

:::I guess my point boils down to the question "If a movie is biased, is any money made because of it considered to be <nowiki>'bilked'</nowiki>?" My answer is no. [[User:ATang|ATang]] 13:06, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:::I guess my point boils down to the question "If a movie is biased, is any money made because of it considered to be <nowiki>'bilked'</nowiki>?" My answer is no. [[User:ATang|ATang]] 13:06, 26 July 2007 (EDT)