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.

Question: "Which standard filmmaking technique is used as a basis to construct conspiracies?"

Answer: "Unethically removing parts of the interview"

Response: no

Flowing water causes sediment to move. Flowing water can erode both rocks and soil. You have already learned that materials can dissolve in water. With enough time, even rocks can be dissolved by water. This process happens really slowly. It may take over a million years to dissolve a rock. It doesnt matter how big the rock is. With enough time, flowing water can dissolve it. Moving water also has the ability to move small pieces of rock and soil. How can water move a rock? Doesnt it need energy? Of course, water gets its energy because it is moving. Moving water has kinetic energy. Things that have more energy can do more work. When water stops moving it will have no energy. It will no longer be able to move the rock and soil. When this happens the rock and soil will settle to the bottom of the calm water. Scientists call this process deposition.

Question: "How long might it take for water to dissolve a rock?"

Answer: "Few days"

Response: no

A government-sponsored coup last year made Bruce Iwasaki and Neal Dudovitz the kings of Los Angeles County's federally funded legal aid community. The two men emerged atop a changed landscape that resulted from a decade of begging for a share of shrinking public dollars doled out by an unsympathetic GOP-controlled Congress. That era was capped in 1998, when the Legal Services Corp. forced 275 legal aid providers nationwide to combine into 179. To comply with the orders from their main funding source, a new species of poverty lawyer emerged - a tech-savvy and button-down breed who swapped neighborhood walkin offices for toll-free phone lines, self-help kiosks and Internet access to legal advice. While some organizations made the dramatic change look effortless, for others, it did not come easy. And few programs provide more dramatic illustrations of the promise and pitfalls of government-funded legal services than Los Angeles County's two largest providers of federally funded services - Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles and Pacoima-based Neighborhood Legal Services of Los Angeles County. From his offices in Koreatown, Iwasaki, a soft-spoken former O'Melveny & Myers attorney, quietly engineered a merger between a much smaller Legal Aid Society of Long Beach and his program, the Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles. The merger was completed peacefully within a year of the federal order. Today, the programs operate seamlessly, offering new innovations - including toll-free multilingual phone advisers, expanded hours for domestic-violence clinics, and renewed immigration and consumer aid - built on the foundations of the old program. The organization is Los Angeles' largest government-funded group, with a budget of $11 million leveraged into $40 million in legal services to the poor.

Question: "What was the result of the merger?"

Answer: "Today, the programs operate seamlessly, offering new innovations - including toll-free multilingual phone advisers, expanded hours for domestic-violence clinics, and renewed immigration and consumer aid - built on the foundations of the old program. The organization is Los Angeles' largest government-funded group, with a budget of $11 million leveraged into $40 million in legal services to the poor"

Response: yes

The protagonist Preetam ( ( ( Ganesh , on a visit to Eva Mall amidst a heavy wind , spots a pretty girl , Nandini . While staring at her , he inadvertently falls into a manhole . Nandini rescues him from the pit , but in the process loses her heart-shaped watch she had just bought . While accompanying his mother to Madikeri , Preetam confronts a man named Jaanu . Jaanu , who has been following Nandini , beats up Preetam thinking that he is in love with Nandini . Preetam , unaware that Jaanu has vowed not to allow any one near Nandini , trashes Jaanu and his gang in return . In Madikeri , Preetam meets Nandini unexpectedly . He identifies himself and expresses his love towards her and offers to tie the watch as an indication for their marriage . Nandini , who is already engaged rejects his request . Still , Preetam vows to marry Nandini if she meets him again . In the meantime , Preetam discovers that his host in Madikeri , Col. Subbayya is Nandini's father , who is pretty much deaf , and Nandini's marriage is a just a week away . Dejected , Preetam throws Nandini's heart-shaped watch away . But Nandini calls him over the phone and taunts him to return . Delighted , Preetam goes in search of her watch and brings it back . While searching it , he spots a rabbit , Which he calls Devadas , and brings it along with him . Since Nandini's friends are due to arrive from Mumbai for the marriage , Preetam takes Nandini to the railway station . The train from Mumbai is delayed by five hours , so Nandini and Preetam decide to visit a nearby hill-temple .

Question: "What happened to Preetam when he spot Nadini for the first time?"

Answer: "He kept starring at her"

Response:
yes