NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/alt/fan/rushlim/10744

Text File | 1992-12-27 | 7.1 KB | 176 lines

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Path: sparky!uunet!mcsun!Germany.EU.net!urmel.informatik.rwth-aachen.de!Sirius.dfn.de!ira.uka.de!yale.edu!spool.mu.edu!wupost!emory!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!usenet.ucs.indiana.edu!venus.iucf.indiana.edu!graham
From: [e-mail] (JIM GRAHAM)
Subject: Re: Flush Limburger
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
Nntp-Posting-Host: venus.iucf.indiana.edu
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Indiana University Cyclotron Facility, Bloomington, Indiana
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Distribution:  world
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 17:56:35 GMT
Lines: 160

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Evil Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way) writes...
>OK, Jim, let's get simple here. I didn't start this thread.

I never said that you did.  Sorry if that's how it seemed.

>
>Do I dare suggest that you retrieve the entire thread and read it before
>you begin compelling me to "grow up a little bit and answer your
>question"?

I'm sorry to have gotten "snotty".  I'll try not to do it again.

>
>The definition I posted earlier was straight out of the dictionary. I
>posted it in response to someone's "personal" definition of the word
>bigot. (Sometimes it appears we need a New Conservative World Dictionary to
>contain all these new meanings for common words around here.)
>
>I even made the point in my earlier post that readers could now decide for
>themselves whether Limbaugh was a bigot or not. (In addition, I made a
>light-hearted remark wondering how Limbaugh might look in a moustache.)

Exactly.  I'll say this again.  I got two dictionary definitions of
"bigot".

I have yet to see an answer to _my_ original question, which is for
someone (anyone) to show me a single definitive example that Rush is
a bigot.  Just one.

>
>My point in saying:
>
>>There you have it, folks. Definitive PROOF that Rush Limbaugh is NOT
>>a bigot.
>
>was simply that the absence of a response to this [challenge] so far was
>obviously considered to be adequate "proof" [and certainly to any loyal
>Limbaugh fan] that Rush is not a bigot. (Ignoring the alternative
>condition where no one cared to argue it and produce the hard evidence
>that was demanded, in conjunction with the definition of the word bigot.)

You won't get off that easily.

A.) You are _assuming_ that the "absence of a response..." was "...obviously
    considered to be adequate proof..."

    Have you questioned the entire audience of this thread?  Do you know
    for a fact that it is "obvious" to everyone else?

B.) You mention that the alternative is that there hasn't been an answer
    because no one cares.  Again, how do you know?  I could just as
    easily make the unfounded assumption (in fact, I did, in jest) that
    maybe no one CAN provide a single definitive example, because there
    simply are none.

>
>Never having insisted that Limbaugh is or isn't a bigot, I do not feel
>obligated to defend either position. Clearly, it would be futile anyway,
>since arguments by those who think he is one are very unlikely to convince
>those who think he isn't one. And vice versa.

If you've never insisted that Rush is or isn't a bigot, then what are you
doing in this thread?  You have no problem with throwing dictionary
definitions of "bigot" my way, and then claiming that the audience will
decide for themselves that he is, based on the dictionary definition,
a "bigot".  But, then, perhaps I'm expecting too much here.

My question still stands, because _it_ has yet to be answered.  I
know it's darned annoying to a lot of folks, but I've learned a long
time ago on the net that one has to insist, many times, that the
subject remain _on topic_ in order to get anywhere with it.

Once again, the question is....Show me a _single_ definitive example
from the past that proves that Rush is a bigot, or sexist, racist, whatever
-descriminatory-stance-you-want inserted here.

>
>So why waste the effort arguing it? Concede. To both sides. I did.

You did?  May I ask how?

>
>There's your answer, Jim: I didn't care to contest anything but the posted
>definition of the word bigot.

Fine.  Except that no one (to my knowledge) has conteste the posted
definition of the word "bigot".

Can you show me how anyone has?

>
>Get it now?

I get only that:

1.) You entered the thread without answering my question.
2.) You chose to defend the definition of "bigot", which
    incidentally, no one has contested at any time.
3.) Now you seem to be attempting to accuse me of not getting it.

>
>This reminds me a little of the Monty Python skit where a fellow paid
>money to get an argument. The other man accepted a 5# note, and then
>proceeded to argue for some time that he hadn't been paid. Then suddenly
>he stopped arguing, and had to be paid another 5# note before he would
>continue arguing.

Sounds good, but it doesn't fly.

I fail to see the similarity at all.

I am not arguing for the sake of arguing.  In fact, I don't feel that
anyone has argued with me about my original contribution, period.

I'll say it one more time, for those of you who didn't see my original
post....

Rush has been accused of being a bigot.  He has been accused of being
sexist and racist, and having no compassion for the homeless.

I originally posted that I would like to see some facts to back these
accusations up.

Instead (so far), I've received nothing but dictionary definitions of
bigot.

I asked the simple question:

"Show me just one definitive example that shows or proves Rush to be
a bigot, racist, or sexist".

I have yet to receive an answer.

If you really want to put this thread to rest (at least my participation
in it), then answer my question, definitively, not with some dictionary
definition and the assumption that I will judge the man based on what the
dictionary says instead of the _facts_.

Since you put so much in assumptions, may I assume that you cannot answer
the question?

>L.
>"Yeh, Buddy..            | [e-mail] (Larry Cunningham)|  _~~_
> I've got your COMPUTER! | % Physical Science Laboratory        | (O)(-)
> Right HERE!!"           | New Mexico State University          |  /..\
> (computer THIS!)        | Las Cruces, New Mexico, USA 88003    |   <>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Disclaimer: Opinions expressed here are CORRECT, mine, and not PSLs or NMSUs..
>Oh sure, we could do it the _easy_ way. But it just wouldn't be the COWBOY WAY.

Jim Graham

        -> ->Disclaimer: I do not speak for my company. <- <-
                          Neither do they speak for me.
 ______________________________________________________________________
| Internet: [e-mail]                              |
|           dolmen![e-mail]                        |
| BBS:      The PORTAL DOLMEN BBS/ParaNet ALPHA-GAMMA (sm) (9:1012/13) |
|            [phone], 24hrs.                                    |
|______________________________________________________________________|