My point, which you missed, was this: you said the movie "wasn't all that inaccurate," which I know to be untrue from first-hand experience. There are several significant inaccuracies, which are compounded by your response above.
I think the problem is that you didn't identify or give any additional information about the inaccuracies. Instead, you allude to first hand experience without saying what it is or how you obtained it (aside from being at Harvard at the time).
This reminds me of a New Yorker lawyer cartoon: A lawyer is facing a jury with the caption "ladies and gentlemen, I've been a lawyer for over 20 years, and either my client is innocent or I'm very much mistaken".
Given that what Numair wrote in response didn't address the issue of inaccuracies in the movie at all, I disagree--the problem seems to be something else entirely.
