On Apr 3, 1:11 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article om, wrote:
On Apr 3, 1:51 am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article . com,
wrote:
I'm not inclined to suppose many elected officials
look up to her or consider her to be anything
more than a 'useful' idiot. OTOH the Republicans
largely credited Rush Limbaugh with helping them
win the Congress and a few years later I personally
heard him trying to fool people into thinking that
Saddam Hussein attacked the World trade Center.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.f...g/0db4ff1505b4...
ce&hl=en
Do you really not ever read the stuff you post?
Or do you read it, and then
deliberately lie about what it says?
In the post you cite above, you describe hearing Limbaugh
_quoting_somebody_else_.
False.
Picky, picky -- you describe hearing Limbaugh play a "sound bite". Point
remains, it was _somebody_else_speaking_, not Limbaugh -- but you blame
Limbaugh.
Of course.
If I put on a radio show in which I speak, go to a commerical
then after the commercial, play music, then fade the music
out and play a soundbite from somebody else saying Mr Miller
is a bright guy, then play more music, then go to another
commercial break, then come back and resume speaking,
would it not be obvious that I was trying to fool people into
thinking that Mr Miller is a bright guy?
What other motivation could reasonably be ascribed to me?
You should go back and read it again.
*You* need to read it the *first* time. Your characterization, *now*, of that
post is directly opposite of what it says.
False.
You can't read plain English.
Then you come here, and claim that *Limbaugh* was attempting to deceive
people.
There's some deception being attempted, all right -- but not by Limbaugh.
I remain convinced that Limbaugh mixed and played
that segment of his show in an attempt to fool people
into thinking that Saddam Hussein attacked the
World trade Center.
That is your opinion, and you are entitled to it, no matter how ignorant and
ill-infomed it may be.
Oddly enough, you deny that below.
The *fact*, however, is that you did *not* "personally hear [Limbaugh] trying
to fool people into thinking that Saddam Hussein attacked the World Trade
Center." What you heard was Limbaugh citing _somebody_else_ who made that
claim.
Are you ordering your comments in reverse of
the described sequence of events just to obfuscate?
The first statement in your paragraph above is false.
The second statement is true for the first
part of the show, preceding the segment in
dispute. I never suggested that his entire show
was deceptive. If it was, he fooled me too.
It is what he played BETWEEN the two commercial
breaks that I recognize as attempting to fool people
into thinking that Saddam Hussein attacked the World
Trade Center. Otherwise, why would he hide the
fact that it was part of his show?
Read it again.
I criticized Limbaugh for PLAYING a statement by
someone else, sandwiched between music, sandwiched
between commercials presented as if he had nothing to
do with it.
NOT citing someone else.
When you CITE someone you identify the speaker and
on a talk show typically also comment on it or at least
acknowledge that the presentation is part of your show.
You don't sneak it in between two commercials and in
the middle of a musical number as if you had nothing
to do with it.
Here is the sequence of his show that day:
Limbaugh played sound bites and commented on them
commercial break
music plays then fades away
soundbites, of someone else speaking
including "Saddam Hussein blew up the World
Trade Center and kids don't know it."
music resumes
commercial break
Limbaugh talks
That is just what I described when I first posted about it,
though I was a bit more succinct as I didn't expect to have
to lay it out in excruciating detail for a rabid semi-literate
moron.
I also expressed a suspicion that the false statement
had been taken out of context (and now suggest it may
also have been re-arranged) as it is hard to believe that
an educator concerned about keeping students informed
of world events would say such a thing intending it as
literal truth.
...
While there may be any number of other reasons
to reject your alternative explanation for now I'll
stick with the simplest--you present none.
The simplest explanation of all is the obvious one -- you're not telling the
truth. What you claim *now* that you heard is not what you stated *then* that
you heard.
Which as you know doesn't even address the issue.
We all know that you are calling me a liar instead of presenting
an alternative explanation for Mr Limbaugh's presentation. So
why not just cut to the chase and admit you can't come up
with one?
--
FF