You are contradicting yourself. You say the film should not be reviewed and criticized because that is taking the bait. Then you say how dangerous he is.
If he is as dangerous as you say ignoring him is not going to make it go away. Your statement is a non sequitur
I did not say the film should not be "reviewed".
I highlighted that the method for reviewing his film or any type of propaganda is not to attempt to prove or disprove facts or alleged factual information. Moore will go to great lengths to include factual information.
The "facts" and the "truth" are not what Moore nor his films are about.
What he is about is skillfully manipulating the viewer to come to a conclusion pre-determined by Moore based on the "information", sound. images and visuals that he weaves together.
Moore will challenge his critics to analyze and disprove specific facts that he highlights. Many critics will take the "bait" and Moore knows this and is prepared. Some facts can be disproved and some won't. The end result is the same.
"If he is as dangerous as you say ignoring him is not going to make it go away. Your statement is a non sequitur"
My statements are not non sequitur.
Is he dangerous? Try substituting the Republicans and George W. Bush with "blacks" or "Jews".
At the end of the day, Jews do pretty much control the world's diamond business, Blacks statistically are the largest percentage of US prison inmates and Cheney did once work for Halliburton.