QUES: Marsha loves playing with her noodle friend. She had it for a long time so it is now a dark brown color. When her mom first made it, it was white. The night she met her noodle friend was spaghetti night. Marsha's favorite dinner was spaghetti, which happened to be every Tuesday night. On one Tuesday, a piece of spaghetti fell on the kitchen floor. To Marsha, it looked like a stick man so she kept him. She named her new noodle friend Joey and took him everywhere she went. Sometimes Joey gets a little dried out so Marsha's mom told her to soak him in water every few days. There were a couple times that the family dog, Mika, has tried to take Joey from Marsha and eat him! So from now on, Marsha takes extra special care to make sure Joey is safe and sound at all times. During the day she keeps him in a plastic bag in her pocket. At night, she puts him under her pillow. She loves Joey and wants to always be friends with him.
Do you have any questions?
MY QUESTION: Which day of the week did Marsha meet her noodle friend?

QUES: You may be wondering, how can a glacier get so big? Why does it move? These are both good questions. In the winter months, precipitation falls as snow. This solid form of water builds up on the ground as long as the temperatures stay cold enough. As the temperature rises, the snow starts to melt. The frozen water changes state back into a liquid state. Nearer the poles, summer does not last very long. If the summer is long enough and warm enough, all the snow may melt. This is what typically happens now. The earth was a little cooler 12,000 years ago. As a result, during the summer months, that amount of snow did not melt. It may have only been an inch or so of snow that melted. The following winter, snow fell on top of this left-over snow. This next winters snowfall had a head start. Year after year, the snow that did not melt became thicker and thicker. Inch by inch the snow started to build up. Over many years, layer upon layer of snow compacted and turned to ice.
Do you have any questions?
MY QUESTION: What state must water be in to become snow?

QUES: New York (CNN) -- Three defendants pleaded guilty in federal court Wednesday to conspiring to defraud a Holocaust reparations organization out of $57.3 million, according to court documents. Genrikh Kolontyrskiy, Moysey Kucher and Dora Kucher, all of Brooklyn, helped produce and process some of the thousands of fraudulent applications for the Conference on Jewish Material Claims Against Germany that are under investigation. The organization, also known as the Claims Conference, distributes more than $400 million a year from funds provided by the German government to victims of the Holocaust. "Our efforts to hold to account all of the individuals who participated in defrauding an organization that exists solely for the purpose of aiding victims of Nazi atrocities continues," said Preet Bharara, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, in a statement. The defendants aided in defrauding two funds managed by the Claims Conference, the Article 2 Fund and the Hardship Fund, of $45 million and $12.3 million, respectively, according to court documents. The Article 2 Fund makes monthly payments of around $400 to survivors of Nazi persecution who make less than $16,000 per year "and either lived in hiding or under a false identity for at least 18 months," according to a news release from the U.S. Attorney's office. The Hardship Fund pays a one-time payment of $3,500 to "victims of Nazi persecution who evacuated the cities in which they lived and were forced to become refugees." Kolontyrskiy, 80, knowingly processed fraudulent applications for payment while employed with the Article 2 Fund, according to court documents. Moysey Kucher, 66, and Dora Kucher, 58, recruited individuals to provide identification documents that were used to prepare fraudulent applications for both funds, in exchange for money paid out to the false applicants, according to court documents. Jesse Siegel, Kolontyrskiy's attorney, said his client was by no means a major instigator, but he takes responsibility for his actions.
Do you have any questions?
MY QUESTION: In what country is the Holocaust reparations organization that was defrauded by the three defendants?

QUES: You write: "Having created the desired impression, Moore follows with his Heston interview." No, he doesn't. You accuse Moore so often of changing the chronology, yet you have no problems changing it yourself. The Heston interview is at the very end of the movie. After the Flint rally comes a brief TV interview with Heston, where he is asked about Kayla Rolland (again, clear evidence that the local media in Flint raised questions about the NRA's presence), then an inteview with country prosecutor Arthur Busch, entirely ignored by critics of the film, who also mentions Heston's presence as notable, and refers to the immediate reactions of "people from all over America", gun owners/groups who, according to him, reacted aggressively to warnings of having guns accessible to children, much like spanking advocates react aggressively when anti-spankers point to a case of a child being killed or severely injured by a beating. These people do not feel the need to express sympathy, or to think about ways to avoid such incidents, but they feel the need to assert their "rights" and to look for quick, simple answers -- as Busch states, gun owners wanted to "hang [the child] from the highest tree". This is all not mentioned by critics of Moore's movie, who claim to be objective. Perhaps the best example of the paranoia surrounding Moore's film is your sub-essay "Is the end of the Heston interview itself faked?" Moore answers a simple question -- how could the scene have been filmed -- with a simple answer: two cameras. From this, you construct an obscure conspiracy of "re-enactment": "For all we can tell, Moore could have shouted 'Hey!' to make Heston turn around and then remained silent as Heston left." Even if your "re-enactment" theory is true (and I see no evidence that you have actually tried to ask the people involved in the filmmaking for their opinion), this itself is not unethical, and you have no evidence whatsoever that Moore has done anything unethical here, just like you have no evidence that Moore has unethically removed parts of the interview. You use standard filmmaking technique as a basis to construct bizarre conspiracies which sound plausible to the gullible reader, without ever providing any evidence for the implicit or explicit claims of fraud and distortion.
Do you have any questions?
MY QUESTION:
What is not mentioned by critics of Moore's movie?