I could care less what anyone thinks of my dietary habits, it's simply none of their business.

But then again, I've never "in a moment of weakness, lost control and raged at or become physically rough with a child."

I've also killed animals, skinned them, butchered them, then eaten them. Many many times.

It's food, and it's no different than reaping wheat or shucking corn.

No do I nor most people I know suffer "similar feelings of regret, remorse, “wrongness”, and a recoiling from the destruction of something living and sentient."

Most animals aren't sentient, very very few mammals, much less any other type of animal are even aware of self. This is demonstrable. Outside of great apes, dolphins, sea cows, and a few select others, animals can't even recoginze themselves.

This doesn't mean they should be abused or made to suffer needlessly. Nothing bother a true hunter like than a suffering animal.

You don't personally want to eat meat, that's fine with my. I simply don't care, but when you start talking about how those of us who simply reject your choices must be somehow overcome with fear, you've crossed the line.

Vegetarianism is a religion to many, and they try to force their religion upon others in the same annoying manner than many relgions do.

Neither I nor most care about your religious vegetarianism.

You just have a piece of paper that says you are.

I've been married for over 10 years, been with my wife for almost 16 years.

During that period, the number of times that either of us have been apart without telling the other in advance is ZERO.

The following doesn't happen in a real marriage.

"It's true that every time I've taken a trip on my own, totaling 10 days in two and a half years, I haven't asked for his permission or told him in advance."

10 days of trips without telling your spouse in advance? You're not even in a committed relationship. It's not about asking permission, it's about communication and trust.

Any spouse that says, "Hey honey, I'll be in Paris this weekend" without any advance warning, is not really married.

I've been on the receiving end of spanking that spans the entire spectrum of spanking, including fire places shovels and switches that cut into flesh.

99% of all spanking is counter productive and does little to inhibit unwanted behavior.

However, there are instances where a swat is exactly what is needed. Very young children often do not comprehend certain dangers and will ignore verbal warnings to the contrary, and here a swat is exceedingly effective.

I'll give you a personal example.

When I was three, my Great Uncle was mowing the lawn, and I was entranced by the path being cut in the grass, and I kept following the mower. While this might not sound dangerous, it was very hazardous. The area being mowed contained stones which when hit could cause serious damage, something I learned later on while mowing the same area. My Grandfather told me three of four times to not follow the mower, and he would pick me up and bring me back to the porch, but the moment nobody was looking, I was back out following the mower.

Finally, as I was walking behind the mower the final time, my Grandfather snuck up behind me and gave me a gentle smack on the behind. In fact, it was so soft I wasn’t sure what had happened until I looked behind me and saw how upset my Grandfather was, I instantly started to cry, not because of any pain, but because I finally understood that what I was doing was seriously wrong.

I never followed the mower again, and years later my Grandfather and I would laugh at the incident, in fact, I can’t write this now without tearing up thinking about the great times we had reminiscing about my only “spanking” my Grandfather ever administered to me.

The purpose behind such a swat is not to instill pain, but to snap a child back to reality and instill respect for danger that the child does not understand.

Please, either get someone to proof read her reviews, or have her stay awake during the movie so parts don't constantly get mixed up.

The below,

Greek naysayer tells Leonidas, "I know your kind too well. You send men to their slaughter for your own gain,

did not happen, that line is Leonidas' wife speaking to Theron the politician.

Sure, the line is there, but not said to the person, and in a wholly different context.

That said: Is it fair to accuse Moore of "sandbagging a senile Charlton Heston"? IIRC, he announced that he had Alzheimer's after "Columbine" was released, which means he was interviewed probably a year before (?).

---------------------------------------

Yes, it is fair to accuse Moore of "sandbagging" Charlton Heston, and it has little to do with Heston actual condition. Why, because Moore tooks snipets from at least 4 different Heston speeches done over a number of years, then weaved them together to present them as one speech, and changed the both the actual meaning of statements and obliterated the context of the speech.

If you watch Columbine, you can see Heston's clothes change between shots, and Moore uses breaks when he switches speechs so it's harder to spot.

The article is correct in that Moore has changed documentaries, but the problem is this change destroys what a documentary was supposed to be. Political, social or economic commentary changed to fit your own ideas is not a documentary, it's propoganda, and true documentaries suffer from having to compete against someone who claims his propoganda is a documentary.

A documentary will always be influenced by the creators views, but wholesale changing of content to express those views no longer qualifies the film as a documentary.