On Apr 4, 12:04 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article .com, wrote:
On Apr 3, 7:00 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
The real problem is that you can't *write* plain English.
To the contrary I carefully chose words that did NOT imply that
the deceptive segment was spoken byLimbaughhimself.
Yet another lie, Fred. You wrote that you personally heardLimbaughattempting
to fool people into thinking that Saddam Hussein attacked the WTC.
That choice of words does, exactly, imply that it
wasLimbaughhimself speaking.
False.
You're in a hole. Quit digging.
[snip]
And you have the nerve to accuse *me* of not being able to read plain
English?!
Of course. Here you say I am entitled to my opinion, then
you call me a liar for expressing it.
No, I call you a liar for claiming that opinion to be a fact.
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."
False.
What you heard wasLimbaughciting _somebody_else_
who made that claim.
False. I did not hear Limbaugh citing someone else.
I made that perfectly clear in the part(s) you snipped,
which no doubt accounts for why you snipped them.
[four]
Are you ordering your comments in reverse of
the described sequence of events just to obfuscate?
Not at all. It *is* a fact that you did not hearLimbaugh
say what you claim he said.
I never claimed that he spoke those words
You implied it, when you falsely stated that you had personally heard him
attempting to fool people into thinking that Saddam Hussein attacked the WTC.
I DID personally hear heim attempting to fool people
into thinking that Saddam Hussein attacked the WTC.
He went to a commercial break, then came back
with music, faded the music into the statement
"Saddam Hussein blew up the World Trade Center
and children don't know it." then went back to music,
went to another commercial break and then
came back and began speaking again.
and was
very careful to avoid anything that implied (to a person
competent in the English Language) that he did.
False yet again...
Nonsense
Were I as intemperate as you, I would call you a liar.
Oh, and calling me a semi-literate moron is temperate?
In the instant case, yes.
Instead, I'll allow as you are too damn proud to admit
you misread what I wrote
And I'll allow as how you are too damn proud to admit that you've been caught
talking through your hat *again*.
Nonsense.
Your conclusion as to what he meant is inference and opinion.
The first statement in your paragraph above is false.
Not according to your original post.
Nonsense. I am quite confident that MrLimbaughis
responsible for what he plays on his show and how
he presents it.
Just as you are responsible for the inferences
you draw from what you hear --
and how you present those inferences.
Absolutely!
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.
You certainly stated that *part* of it was deceptive.
Of course. It was.
Point it, it wasn't *Limbaugh* who made the
deceptive statement. You implied
that it was.
No, I did not. That is an incorrect inference you
drew. The fact that Limbaugh was crafty enough to
not make the statement with his own voice does
not change his culpability.
I guess it might have deceived me, too,
if I had as much trouble understanding
plain English as you seem to.
You are the one who read "tried to fool" and misrepresent
it as "said".
You wrote that you personally heardLimbaughattempting
to fool people into
thinking that Saddam Hussein attacked the WTC.
Yes, I did.
Limbaughdidn't say that.
Correct. I said that.
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?
"Hide"? Where does that come from?
That comes from putting it in between two commercial
breaks so it sounded like something that followed or
preceded his show, and was not part of it. It's not
like he commented on it or even spoke a single word
indicating it was part of his show.
Your original post indicated that it was
apparently the voice of a person who
had been on the show previously.
False. Lying again I see.
And
now you want me to believe that you think
it wasn't even part of the show?
False. Lying again I see.
Get real.
Just admit you've been caught talking through
your hat -- *again* -- and drop
it. You're in a hole, but you haven't figured that o
ut yet, and you're still
digging.
Read it again.
Ditto.
I criticizedLimbaughfor PLAYING a statement by
someone else, sandwiched between music, sandwiched
between commercials presented as if he had nothing to
do with it.
False. You criticizedLimbaughfor "trying to fool people into thinking that
Saddam Hussein attacked the World Trade Center."
To the contrary it is true.
Perhaps in LeftSpeak. I believe, though, that
words actually have meanings.
For instance, that "true" means objectively verifiable,
real and correct.
Apparently, you believe that "true" means whatever a
dvances your particular
set of beliefs.
The truth is that he mixed and played that number
as an attempt to fool people into thinking Saddam
Hussein attacked the WTC.
He tried to fool people into thinking that Saddam Hussein
attacked the World Trade Center by playing a statement to
that effect sandwiched between music and sandwiched between
commercials so that it did not seem on it's face to be a
part of his show.
sigh Caught you *again*.
You wrote at the time:
"... sound byte that sounded like it was from
the same person MrLimbaughhad
been criticizing earlier."
Yes, you caught me telling the truth again.
So... were you lying then, when you said it
sounded like the same person, or
are you lying now, when you say it didn't
seem to be part of the show?
Both statements are true. If he didn't want
to disguise the fact that the part between
the commercials was part of his show WHY
didn't he say anything between the two
commercials?
Why didn't he comment on the number before
or after?
Not to mention the fact that your reference
_at_the_time_ toLimbaughas
having *criticized* that person pretty much
knocks the props out from
underneath your current claim thatLimbaughendorsed
that viewpoint.
Another lie. I never claimed that Limbaugh endorsed
the viewpoint. Obviously the subterfuge was put
together in order to maintain 'deniability'. Evidently
it worked on you.
If he were mocking the speaker, why didn't
he identify her? I can't even be sure it was
the same speaker.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.f...e=source&hl=en
That's Limbaugh's shtick. Any time you tune in,
you will find some variation on the scenario you
just described. That you were able to discern what
was going on upon your first visit with el-Rushbo,
while others have been listening for years and still
don't realize what's going on, is the real mystery.
Now give it up. You've been caught in a lie, and
you've compounded it by
adding morelieson top of it in a failed attempt
to justify the original one.
One merely has to review this thread to see
a dozen or more lies you've told about me.
--
FF