Is he serious?

Sorry to beat a dead horse... but this LA Times profile of Michael Moore is beyond annoying. I just realized that link won't work unless you have a subscription, so let me just quote the esp. annoying section:

"What is perhaps most surprising in 'Fahrenheit 9/11' is Moore's decision to make himself less visible as an on-camera presence, in part because the filmmaker says he 'has not been able to come to grips with my own recovery from Sept. 11.'
'I'm someone who lives in New York, who was supposed to fly that day, who lost a friend on the Boston flight, who watched the World Trade Center being built from my aunt's porch on Staten Island,' he says. 'I just couldn't come to grips with my own sadness, I just wasn't there yet. I felt that the issues that sprung from Sept. 11 deserved to be much more front and center.'
Besides, Moore says, 'I don't personally like to be on camera, I don't like looking at myself on screen. There's always been a sign in my editing rooms that says 'When in doubt, cut me out.' I've found that a little bit of me goes a long way."

Do you believe any of this? What part of his previous films make you think that he hates being on camera? Was there a period of time when he was OK with 9/11--or had come to terms with his recovery (or whatever mamby-pamby new age bullshit he's spouting)--that allowed him to (glibly) use the WTC imagery in Bowling For Columbine? Such grotesque faux-modesty.

Micahel, I don't feel your pain. Nor do I believe it.