No doubt. And everyone here would be downplaying it as me freaking out about nothing, or giving their slant on why it wasn't historical revisionism at all.

The one thing I will give you and everyone else is that if they are claiming the 9/11 report is their source then they should stick to it to the letter. I will say that I do not regard that report as much more than a CYA for EVERYONE.

The old 'two wrongs don't make it right, but it damn sure makes it even' argument, eh?

I didn't like it much after the OJ verdict, and I like it even less now. I'd be curious to see where you might show me an example of such behavior on my part, Scaeagles. I truly do apologise if I have ever done so. I am one of those really naive people that usually dislike such things, no matter what the source.

WB, I really don't see where I've been inconsistent. Honestly. Moonliner quoted my Reagan stuff, but it's no different than what I've been saying here - as a consumer, put all the pressure you want on a broadcast company, but keep the government out of it or else it becomes censorship.

And I just went and reread that whole Reagan thread from 2003 (wow - long time ago now - follow the link to another site), and it was absolutely amazing to hear how some posters were upset at pressure from the public. Granted, WB, you were not involved in the conversation.

I'm wondering if anyone watched part 1 last night. I recorded it, but opted to watch the Fox animation lineup instead. One thing I found odd - my local ABC HD station didn't show it in widescreen - so I grabbed a widescreen copy from the BBC airing - I wonder if it's the pre-edited version...

I was watching Manning vs. Manning on Sunday night football.

You and the rest of the country. The ABC "special" was thoroughly trounced in the ratings. I know I played my part in not watching. I also heard, but I'm hoping someone can confirm, that the one or two advertisers for tonight's installment have pulled out.

I've never read the 9-11 commission report but the history channel has a show on today about it. It looks like I should watch it.
No I didn't watch the abc show last night. I'm tired of all the fictionalization on tv of real events.

Yesterday afternoon I decided to not spend a chunk of my life watching this thing that I didn't want to watch in the first place. My reasoning was that newswatchers who I read would, and would post the discrepancies about which I was most interested. My other decision was to use my Tivo to send a message to ABC/Disney. Apparently Tivo usage information is gathered and used for ratings purposes. I used the "thumbs down" function on the show, applied my valuable Tivo recording space on things I like, and went about my day.

Today is a work day for me, I don't have much time to spend on this subject. Tomorrow or the next day I have some thoughts on this mess, and in particular, the "Fahrenheit 9/11" vs. "Path to 9/11" straw man argument.

I never did see Fahrenheit 911, can someone bring me up to speed. The Path to 9/11 contains numerous scenes that are not just inaccurate but patently false and made up. Is the same true about Fahrenheit 911? I understood it was unflattering, disrespectful and possibly taken out of context but did the movie make up facts and blatenly revise history?

Fahrenheit 9/11 is a documentary. The crap they showed last night is not. F9/11 was released nationwide in theaters, giving people the option to see it or not. 'The Path to 9/11' was produced for ABC to be shown only on ABC and purports to be a 'docudrama', which basically covers all the bases. Not only were they presenting this pile of merde as truth, they also teamed up with Scholastic to release a discussion guide to be used in America's classrooms.

:rolleyes: