Path to 9/11

[Fuzzness 2]

Ah, ok. I see what you're saying. Perhaps it's a bit deceiving but NOTHING as outrageous as calling voters in the South and telling them your opponent fathered a black child out of wedlock. My point is that BOTH Parties resort to tactics that are questionable. This pales in comparison to so many others, so why get worked up over being redirected? Look at the web address...it's http://www.pathto911.com, not 'thepathto911'. Do tell me Charles that this isn't the first time you've been redirected to another because of a similarly named website?

Easy on South dude.

No cool..

the south sux

Ah, ok. I see what you're saying. Perhaps it's a bit deceiving but NOTHING as outrageous as calling voters in the South and telling them your opponent fathered a black child out of wedlock. My point is that BOTH Parties resort to tactics that are questionable. This pales in comparison to so many others, so why get worked up over being redirected? Look at the web address...it's http://www.pathto911.com, not 'thepathto911'. Do tell me Charles that this isn't the first time you've been redirected to another because of a similarly named website?

Easy on South dude.

No cool..

the south sux

ahem

[ceriserose 1]

Ah, ok. I see what you're saying. Perhaps it's a bit deceiving but NOTHING as outrageous as calling voters in the South and telling them your opponent fathered a black child out of wedlock. My point is that BOTH Parties resort to tactics that are questionable. This pales in comparison to so many others, so why get worked up over being redirected? Look at the web address...it's http://www.pathto911.com, not 'thepathto911'. Do tell me Charles that this isn't the first time you've been redirected to another because of a similarly named website?

Easy on South dude.

No cool..

the south sux

Ah, ok. I see what you're saying. Perhaps it's a bit deceiving but NOTHING as outrageous as calling voters in the South and telling them your opponent fathered a black child out of wedlock. My point is that BOTH Parties resort to tactics that are questionable. This pales in comparison to so many others, so why get worked up over being redirected? Look at the web address...it's http://www.pathto911.com, not 'thepathto911'. Do tell me Charles that this isn't the first time you've been redirected to another because of a similarly named website?

Easy on South dude.

No cool..

the south sux

so the south sux twice?

[Mirorgate 0]

Ah, ok. I see what you're saying. Perhaps it's a bit deceiving but NOTHING as outrageous as calling voters in the South and telling them your opponent fathered a black child out of wedlock. My point is that BOTH Parties resort to tactics that are questionable. This pales in comparison to so many others, so why get worked up over being redirected? Look at the web address...it's http://www.pathto911.com, not 'thepathto911'. Do tell me Charles that this isn't the first time you've been redirected to another because of a similarly named website?

Easy on South dude.

No cool..

the south sux

Ah, ok. I see what you're saying. Perhaps it's a bit deceiving but NOTHING as outrageous as calling voters in the South and telling them your opponent fathered a black child out of wedlock. My point is that BOTH Parties resort to tactics that are questionable. This pales in comparison to so many others, so why get worked up over being redirected? Look at the web address...it's http://www.pathto911.com, not 'thepathto911'. Do tell me Charles that this isn't the first time you've been redirected to another because of a similarly named website?

Easy on South dude.

No cool..

the south sux

repeated for the hard of comprehension?

[almaty 19]

repeated twice for my southern friends..

[Heracles 417]

the south suxs..

Have you watched Ali G and his sketch on Kazakstan? Now that ###### is funny..

[Fuzzness 2]

repeated twice for my southern friends..

What's wrong with you bro dean? We have many friends here who are southerners, and many of us are becoming southerners. I thought you better than that

the south suxs..

Have you watched Ali G and his sketch on Kazakstan? Now that ###### is funny..

very pathetic attempt at a comeback

[type2negative 0]

repeated twice for my southern friends..

What's wrong with you bro dean? We have many friends here who are southerners, and many of us are becoming southerners. I thought you better than that

the south suxs..

Have you watched Ali G and his sketch on Kazakstan? Now that ###### is funny..

very pathetic attempt at a comeback

Its not a pathetic comeback. The show and Borat are really funny.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

repeated twice for my southern friends..

What's wrong with you bro dean? We have many friends here who are southerners, and many of us are becoming southerners. I thought you better than that

the south suxs..

Have you watched Ali G and his sketch on Kazakstan? Now that ###### is funny..

very pathetic attempt at a comeback

Its not a pathetic comeback. The show and Borat are really funny.

In the best tradition of "it ain't half hot, mum"

[Marc and Olga 0]

Thanks to a combination of things that individually would not have prevented me from working, I was able to watch part 2 and I admit the diclaimer at the beginning was fair!

"The movie is NOT a documentary"

Also while it did show that there was a possibility of the previous administrations inaction towards AQ, it also put this administration in a less then favorable light as well.

To me, that seems fair, though again:

"The movie is NOT a documentary"

[clloyd 0]

As I recall, War of the Worlds had a similar disclaimer.

[Marc and Olga 0]

As I recall, War of the Worlds had a similar disclaimer.

Remember what happened when Orson Wells dramatized it on the radio without a similar disclaimer? People believed it to be the truth and panic ensued.

Then again, War of the World's trailer didn't claim it to be the "the official true story" either.

Edited September 12, 2006 by Marc and Olga

[clloyd 0]

Actually, I beleive it was disclaimered.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_War_of_th...lds_%28radio%29

Later studies also indicated that many listeners missed the repeated notices that the broadcast was entirely fictional, partly because the Mercury Theatre (an unsponsored "cultural" programme with a relatively small audience) ran opposite the popular Edgar Bergen show. About 12 minutes into Bergen's program an opera number began, and many listeners presumably began tuning around the dial.

[Heracles 417]

Funny how certain people had absolutely no problem with Fahrenheit 9/11 not including a disclaimer..

[Marc and Olga 0]

Funny how certain people had absolutely no problem with Fahrenheit 9/11 not including a disclaimer..

Funny how the DVD DOES have a disclaimer stating that the commentaries contained are for ENTERTAINMENT only. I checked.

Of course to me movies ARE for entertainment ONLY, even ones BASED on actual events.

As for the War of the Worlds, well I'm wrong there were appearently:

While there were repeated statements concerning the fictional nature of the program, no such statement was broadcast between the 12 minute mark and the 40 minute mark. In fact, the warning at the 40 minute mark is the only one that occurs after the actors start speaking in character, and before Welles breaks character at the end.

(Wikipedia source above)

I would guess that the people who tuned in late, missed the opening disclaimer and by 40 minutes, I would guess that the panic was already starting and people were not paying very close attention to their radios

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Funny how certain people had absolutely no problem with Fahrenheit 9/11 not including a disclaimer..

Funny how the DVD DOES have a disclaimer stating that the commentaries contained are for ENTERTAINMENT only. I checked.

Facts aren't his strong suit.

Edited September 12, 2006 by Steven_and_Jinky