First, before entering into debates, please read up on netiquette. If you were to cut out the parts of my post you didn't care about and only quoted the parts you did, you would not have to bold them.
I see you have decided to scold me, as if you were coming from a position of authority. Maybe you believe you have the high ground and can be condescending. It is not a good position to start a debate in. Your need to express your belief of superiority shows you don't have confidence in your argument.
The most remarkable thing about the above post is that the author has not even watched the movie but has quite an opinion on it.
??? based on "what he has heard about it".
Yes. I expressed an opinion on the movie without seeing it. Please reread my post. I attacked the movie's honesty, not the content. I can do that because at least one of the people who was in the movie have stated that they were edited to agree with the conclusions of the movie, when in reality their interview did not say that.
Editing an interview in that fashion is dishonest.
I believe that those who are dishonest, even in small matters, will be dishonest in large matters.
I suggest reading and understanding someone's post before attempting to flame them.
Propaganda def: a means of propagating a doctrine, information, (esp. misleading) information etc. Oxford English Dictionary.
I find it interesting that you need to go to an external source to prop up your argument. Do you not believe you can debate this on your own?
Salon Media Group is just another on-line propaganda rag...
(rant about big media cut for space)
Just because it's posted on a large media site does not mean the facts are incorrect. The fact that "What the beep" dishonestly edited their movie remains.
But, I would definately watch it first before posting negative things about it.
If I were arguing the content I would agree.
I'm not. I'm arguing they have misrepresented at least one of their experts. This dishonesty makes me doubt the honesty of their intentions.
That shows your ignorance and naivety.
An insult combined with another attempt to achieve superiority. Is your argument so weak that you require such low brow tactics?
And that just breeds a frenzy of negativity in an already negative world, thanks to so much propaganda going around already. Do you think we have been told the truth about 'life' in the past few thousand years?
Actually I think I posted I was open to other ideas and beliefs. I don't blindly take anyone's truth, on any topic. I use my mind. And one question I ask my self is "Is the person telling me this trustworthy? Are they honest?" I have proof that the makers of "What the Bleep?" are neither.
Also, you may see what the scientists, say for themselves at
http://www.whatthebleep.com/scientists/ where they link many of their own websites to.
Just because someone is a scientist does not make their speculation is any more valid then any one else's. You don't want to believe current main stream ideas, but you fall in behind a group of scientists? What's the difference?
