So Strick, upon reading Moore's very detailed response, which does show these "critics" of the film to be the ones lying (the link to the Chicago Sun Times story about the "bang for your buck" gun in the bank scene alone supports Moore, not his critics), what do you think about this film which, as I recall, you yourself had never seen?

All art, all writing, all documentary, all journalism, comes from the subjective point of view of the artist/writer. If these so-called critics have such a problem with the subjective point of view of a filmmaker, why not make their own film that presents their point of view?

Answer: no fucking talent or ambition. It's easier to get paid for taking potshots at "the enemy" (ie anyone who holds a subjective opinion different than your own) from the sidelines.

But I am concerned about people like them, and possibly you too. You really don't seem to be able to grasp the simple concept that different people view "the facts" differently, and it doesn't mean necessarily that anyone is lying, or even being manipulative. As a documentary filmmaker and non-fiction writer, Michael Moore's job is to give us HIS opinion of the real life circumstances and events and issues and personalities he chooses to write about. He is under no obligation to tell "the other side" of the story, because that isn't HIS story.

So get over it.