On Apr 24, 10:32 am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article . com, wrote:
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.
Here we go again. You can cry "false" all you want, but it doesn't make it so.
Quit mischaracterizing what you wrote.
I'm not the one doing that.
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.
Again -- quit mischaracterizing what you wrote. According to the account you
wrote at the time, you heard Limbaugh playing a tape of _someone_else_
speaking. And now you're blaming Limbaugh.
Of course. He made the tape and played it on his show.
That won't wash, Fred. Either you weren't telling the truth about what you
heard _then_, or you're not telling the truth about it _now_.
Nonsense. I have been consistent. You, OTOH have been all
over the place.
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.
What you made perfectly clear was that you heard a tape of _someone_else_
speaking, on Limbaugh's show.
So, you were lying when you wrote that I heard Limbaugh citing
someone else, right?
[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.
False. You said, at the time, that you heard him playing audio of
_someone_else_ saying that.
Yes, that was the method he used.
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,
Again -- what you said at the time was that it was _someone_else_ speaking.
Not Limbaugh.
Yes.
Were you lying then, or are you lying now?
Neither. BTW, AFAICR that was the first time I forgot to
mention that the soundbytes between the music were another
speaker but we are clear on that point now.
went to another commercial break and then
came back and began speaking again.
Aaah, I see. Lying *now*, by implying, falsely (through the use of the phrase
"began speaking again"), that it was Limbaugh speaking.
False again. The statements are correct, and consistent with the
sequence of events, that I summarize he
Mr Limbaugh spoke
Commercial break
music--soundbytes-music
Mr Limbaugh spoke 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.
Hypocrite.
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.
You just can't let this go, can you?
Feh.
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 Mr Limbaugh is
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!
About time you took responsibility for that blatant falsehood.
No falsehoods on my part, are you going to admit to
your many lies?
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.
Oh, bull****. You claimed that you heard Limbaugh attempting to fool people
into thinking that Saddam Hussein attacked the WTC, and that's just false.
No, that is true.
By
your own admission, what you heard was Limbaugh playing audio of
_somebody_else_ attributing the attack to Saddam Hussein.
Yes, that was his method.
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.
And that's why I'm calling you a liar.
Call me what you like, that is what I heard.
Limbaugh didn't say that.
Correct. I said that.
The first time, yes. But when you came back this time, you didn't say that.
This time I said many things. All of them are consistent and
accurately
relate what I heard: Rush Limbaugh trying to fool people into
thinking
that Saddam Hussein attacked the WTC.
You implied that Limbaugh made the statement.
No, I carefully chose words that did not imply that Limbaugh
made the statement himself. As you know, I even directed the
readers to the detailed story he
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.f...e=source&hl=en
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.f...e=source&hl=en
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.
No, Fred, that's a true statement, and you're the one lying here. Go look up
your original post.
Right he
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.f...e=source&hl=en
In fact, I don't recall Limbaugh ever having a guest on any of his
shows.
So you're lying now, right?
And
now you want me to believe that you think
it wasn't even part of the show?
False. Lying again I see.
Indeed you are. Give it a rest, willya?
Obviously if I didn't think it was part of his show, I
wouldn't hold him responsible for it.
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.
That's your opinion, and your inference. It's not a fact.
If I saw Mr Limbaugh ****ing on your head your opinion might be that
it's raining but mine will be different. I daresay mine will be
consistent
with fact.
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.
You just can't see the contradictions in your own statements, can you? In one
breath, you admit that Limbaugh was criticizing the person, and in the next
breath, you claim that he was *endorsing* that person's statement.
False. I never said that Limbaugh endorsed the statement. That's
another of your lies.
...
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.
Oh, you mean you were lying *both* times?
You're lying again.
Doesn't surprise me.
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 don't you ask him?
I gather from his website that he only accepts electronic
communications from his online fan club. How about
if you ask and then get back to us. It would be a big
help if you would identify the other speaker(s).
I'd love to hear what she said in its original context
BEFORE Limbaugh edited it.
Why didn't he comment on the number before
or after?
Why don't you ask him?
I gather from his website that he only accepts electronic
communications from his online fan club. How about
if you ask and then get back to us. It would be a big
help if you would identify the other speaker(s).
I'd love to hear what she said in its original context
BEFORE Limbaugh edited it.
Other people who have talk shows typically
reintroduce the subject matter when they
come back from a commercial break, to remind
the audience of the topic and/or to orient people
just tuning in. Why didn't Limbaugh identify himself,
the speaker or say _anything_ at all during that middle
segment? Why, when he began speaking AGAIN,
after the second commercial break, did he not
comment on the preceding segment(s)?
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.
You keep adding lie upon lie in order to maintain your original fiction. You
claimed that Limbaugh used that statement in an attempt to fool people into
thinking it was true, which is equivalent to "endorsing" it.
False. Evidently you think that you can convince people of an
earlier lie by telling another. Maybe you should write for Bush.
As you know, I never claimed that Limbaugh endorsed the statement.
I observed that he used the statement in an attempt to fool people
into thinking that Saddam Hussein attacked the WTC. The fellow
who replied to my 2004 article confirmed that was Limbaugh's
modus operandi. I also don't know the original context of the
statement.
So you can quite claiming that I said Limbaugh endorsed
the statement. We all know that you are lying.
Obviously the subterfuge was put
together in order to maintain 'deniability'. Evidently
it worked on you.
Limbaugh has stated on his show, repeatedly, that Saddam Hussein had nothing
to do with the attacks on the WTC, and he's been repeatedly critical of those
who claim that he did.
I never heard him say anything of the sort--but I don't hear him very
often. Any such statement was conspicuously absent from the 2004
Thanksgiving show. I don't recall him saying anything about the
WTC or Saddam Hussein at all during that entire show.
And THAT knocks the props out of your excuse that he may
have been mocking the speaker.
You obviously failed to understand what you heard.
Fine, I can live with that. What I'm having a real hard time with is your
continued misrepresentations of what you heard, and the cascade of lies that
you have issued in a desperate attempt to avoid admitting that you simply made
a mistake.
I repeat Mr Carr's remarks :
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. Then again, many people still believe
the WWF is real.
--
FF