[Boxen]

You're begging the question, too. How do you know that anyone is threatened by this film? I'm guessing the authors are attacking the film because they it is untrustworthy in the way it communicates its message, not because they feel "threatened". for instance, suppose your spouse lies to you about something. Do you just let the lie pass, merely because it doesn't "threaten" you?

Also, would you like to point out some of the "rage" in the article?

Hey! I've got an even better idea! Let's discuss the points in the actual article, not the manner of the arguer! Seriously. To do otherwise is fallacious and disingenuous to the argument.

[LS]

Let you know soon as I’ve seen it. BTW, have YOU seen it? If not, you certainly cannot discuss in a logical manner anything the magazine claims. Anyone can claim anything.