wrote:
On Apr 9, 12:37 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:

In article .com, wrote:

On Apr 8, 10:58 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:

In article . com,

wrote:

On Apr 8, 1:42 pm, Doug Miller wrote:

In article om,
says...

Sixty percent of Federal Judges and seven of the nine current
Justices of the USSC, as well as seven of the nine serving when
Clinton LEFT office, were appointed by Republicans.

Just about right,

Those numbers for the USSC are _exact_ the information is
readily available in various biographical sources. The number
for Federal Judges is from other sources.

You missed the point, which was that the
numbers you cited are pretty much
what would be expected ...

No, I didn't miss the point, I was annoyed at your
use of "just about".

Obviously you *have* missed the point, and continue to miss it. Since you're
still having difficulty, let me spell it out as clearly as I can.

I don't argue with your figures for the composition of the USSC and the
Federal judiciary, and the phrase "just about" was not applied to their
accuracy (as should have been clear to anyone with a normal ability to
comprehend written English). For the sake of this discussion, I'm willing to
stipulate that the figures you presented are entirely correct.


I disagree. I think that most people with a normal ability
to comprehend written English would consider "just about
right" to be a comment addressing accuracy.


I've been lurking, following youse guys' less-than eloquent discourses.
I took the comment "just about right" to mean, given the composition
of election results to the presidency, the composition of judges
appointed by Republican presidents to be appropriate and fair, not a
comment that the numbers were arithmetically correct.

In article .com, wrote:
On Apr 9, 12:37 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article .com,
wrote:
On Apr 8, 10:58 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article . com,
wrote:
On Apr 8, 1:42 pm, Doug Miller wrote:
In article om,
says...

Sixty percent of Federal Judges and seven of the nine current
Justices of the USSC, as well as seven of the nine serving when
Clinton LEFT office, were appointed by Republicans.

Just about right,

Those numbers for the USSC are _exact_ the information is
readily available in various biographical sources. The number
for Federal Judges is from other sources.

You missed the point, which was that the
numbers you cited are pretty much
what would be expected ...

No, I didn't miss the point, I was annoyed at your
use of "just about".

Obviously you *have* missed the point, and continue to miss it. Since you're
still having difficulty, let me spell it out as clearly as I can.

I don't argue with your figures for the composition of the USSC and the
Federal judiciary, and the phrase "just about" was not applied to their
accuracy (as should have been clear to anyone with a normal ability to
comprehend written English). For the sake of this discussion, I'm willing to
stipulate that the figures you presented are entirely correct.

I disagree. I think that most people with a normal ability
to comprehend written English would consider "just about
right" to be a comment addressing accuracy.

Well, yes, when separated from its context (as you did), and addressed without
regard to the clause that followed it (as you did), sure. When read as one
sentence (the way I wrote it), the meaning is clear to anyone with a normal
ability to comprehend written English.


My point is that a +/- 70% Republican-appointed judiciary is "just about"
what
one would expect, if one has been paying attention to the fact that the
Republican candidate has won 70% of the Presidential elections in the last
forty years.

We agree on that point. I trust you will also agree that "just
about right" is not equivalent to "just about what one would
expect."

Perhaps you should try reading what I wrote as a whole, instead of breaking it
into pieces and considering each piece separately, divorced from the others
which provide it context.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

On Apr 9, 5:33 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:

...

Perhaps you should try reading what I wrote as a whole, instead of breaking it
into pieces and considering each piece separately, divorced from the others
which provide it context.


Fair enough.

At least now you know that I checked the bios
of the USS Justices myself--I should have said
so a bit differently.

--

FF

wrote:
On Apr 8, 10:07 pm, Andrew Barss wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

: But the essential claim was that they are dangerous
: precisely because they accumulate weapons.

No, the point was, and is, that you said something wrong,
a useful online data source was given that, had you read it,
would have shown you to be wrong, and yet you persist.

No surprise.

I once directed Mr Daneliuk to the section of the UCMJ which addresses
the persons who are subject to its provisions. In his reply he

And were essentially wrong in your argument as I recall.

informed us that he did not have to read it in order to know what it
said and proceeded to (incorrectly) lecture us on its applicability.

Because I relied not on the source document, but summaries found in
other books I'd read. (Your intimation here, of course, is that I had no
firsthand knowledge of the question at hand, which is incorrect. I just
got it from something other than the single source document you clung
to.) In this case, summaries I'd found at some distant point in the past
that contrasted military and civil laws in the US. IIRC, my inability to
produce the cite (a favorite FF debating tactic) caused you to dismiss
my understanding of the topic under debate out of hand. Nevermind that I
was actually more-or-less right about it, *you* read the UCMJ and
(apparently) *only* the UCMJ and were thus to be trusted even absent any
coherent analysis, relevant history, and, in this case, correctness.


I had also erred on the subject but the difference is that I checked
my information, Mr Daneliuk refused to do so even when all he had to
do was click on a link and read the webpage.

IOW - You claimed to have read the source document and were wrong. I
relied on summaries and synthesis of the source documents and was right.
That's the difference between an insecure mind craves affirmation via
pedantry and an inquiring mind that wants to ascertain the best
understanding of a topic. Your constant squealing about the source
documents without any real deeper understanding of what they mean
betrays the former.

I do not have enough lifetimes to read every source document on every
topic of interest. Moreover, I have sufficient judgment to generally
know which overviews and precis of complex topics I can rely upon.
Educated and thoughtful people learn from other educated and thoughtful
people. This means we read books that summarize, compile, annotate,
interpret, contextualize, and otherwise school us in complex topics.
That is one of the means that modern man has been able to accumulate and
harness knowledge gained over the ages in the face of the insurmountable
task of reading every or even a portion of the relevant source
documents. People who do not do this are simply not well educated. They
are self-important pendants that cannot wait to breathlessly engage in
verbal jousts for the sole purpose of trying to demonstrate how smart
they are. Smart they may be, but educated they are not.

It is the task of the subject-matter specialist to arm themselves
deeply with knowledge of the source material. These people go
on to produce the syntheses that I prefer to read. I do not, for
example, need to be a US Constitution scholar to have a general
understanding of the intent and purpose of the Framers. That's
because the aforementioned specialists have produced a body
of work - some of which is approachable by the interested layman -
to educate the non-specialist.


After all, he is also able to ascertain both the content of books and
the motivations of their authors without reading them, and

No - I am capable of studying a writer's work in context. This means
reading more than just single source documents and interpreting them
with simplistic literal-mindedness as you do. Context is achieved by
looking at a body of writing and comparing, contrasting, and analyzing
it in light of other, similar documents and/or summaries of the topic at
hand. Your arguments are largely puerile because you mostly refuse to do
this (at least as evidenced in our many debates), choosing instead to
trumpet pedantic demands for citation and/or relying almost exclusively
on single sources for your "analysis".


Really, if you're going to be consistent, you ought to reduce all of
your idea combat to a single foundational debate about epistemology,
language, and semiotics. These are the heart and soul of almost all
debates and ought to keep you busy for years reading the source
material. I will give you a big head start: No system claiming to
produce knowledge (i.e., an epistemic system) - whether it is science,
mathematics, religion, meditation, or quivering with transcendent
understanding - actually "proves" the delivered "knowledge" is "true". A
given epistemology can only be judged on three metrics: 1) Is the system
internally consistent, 2) Do the results correspond to observed Reality,
and 3) Do the results have some utility value whether absolutely "true"
or not. 1) was demonstrated to be ultimately impossible to achieve
completely by the work of the mathematician Kurt Goedel - at least for
those systems of knowledge that depend on logic. 2) only works
if you concede that Reality can, in fact, be reliably observed and
analyzed - an unprovable axiom in its own right. 3) is claimed by
adherents of *all* epistemic systems, and cannot ultimately be proven or
disproven completely or absolutely. In short - what you "know" finally
depends on what you *believe* in the first place.

even is able to read our minds so as to determine out motivations and
to clarify what we meant to write, when we make the mistake of writing
something different from what we really mean.

No - I am able to spot a conflict junkie that uses intellectual fraud to
feed their habit. One can pretty much always come up with skepticism of
any argument, position, document, source, or author. This is not deep
thought, it is argument for its own sake. Your motivations are as
irrelevant and uninteresting to me as your person is. It's the ideas you
flog and so artfully disguise as deeply thought out that I've attempted
to refute. I do not claim that I am always or even mostly right. The
topics we debate are too complex for that simple a taxonomy. I merely
claim that your analysis is bogus, your claims to understanding
fraudulent, and your manner of argument and counter-argument a sham.

Other than that, I find your commentary compelling ...


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On Mar 5, 1:37 pm, Steve wrote:
Sun Responsible for Global Warming
As Reported on NewsMax

Two new reports cast doubt on the manmade global warming theory and
instead point to another cause for the recent warming of Earth to
changes in the sun.

One report from National Geographic News asserts, "Simultaneous
warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate
changes have a natural and not a human-induced cause, according to one
scientist's controversial theory.

Data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey mission in 2005
disclosed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps near Mars' south pole had
been shrinking for three consecutive summers.

Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of the Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory
in Russia, says the shrinking provides evidence that the current
warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun, according to
the National Geographic article.

"The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth
and Mars, he said. "Manmade greenhouse warming has made a small
contribution to the warming seen on Earth in recent years but it
cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance.

The other report offers a mechanism behind the changes in the sun
variations in its magnetic field.

Compiled by scientists at the Danish National Space Center, it
maintains that the Earth's climate is strongly influenced by cosmic
rays from exploded stars.

The cosmic rays help make ordinary clouds, and high levels of rays and
cloudiness cool the planet, while lower levels of radiation lead to
milder temperatures, according to the Danish report, which is cited by
Marc Morano, communications director for the U.S. Senate Committee on
Environment & Public Works, on the committee's Web site.

"Cosmic ray intensities and therefore cloudiness keep changing because
the sun's magnetic field varies in its ability to repel cosmic rays
coming from the galaxy before they reach the Earth, the Danish report
by Henrik Svensmark, head of the Space Center, explains.

Whenever the sun's magnetic field was weak, cosmic ray intensities
were high and the climate cooled, most recently in the little ice age
that climaxed 300 years ago.

Several scientists cited in the report believe that changes in the
Earth's climate are linked to "the journey of the sun and the Earth
through the Milky Way Galaxy. They blame the icehouse episodes on
encounters with bright spiral arms, where cosmic rays are most
intense.

NOAA is wonderful. It seems every month NOAA puts out a report saying
the latest month is one of the warmest on record. Every month.

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2007/s2838.htm

MARCH TEMPERATURES SECOND WARMEST ON RECORD FOR U.S.;
GLOBAL MARCH TEMPERATURE FIFTH WARMEST ON RECORD

April 16, 2007 - March 2007 was more than five degrees Fahrenheit
warmer than average throughout the contiguous U.S., making it the
second warmest March on record, according to scientists at the NOAA
National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. Precipitation was
above average in much of the center of the nation, while the Southeast
and much of the West were drier than average. The global average March
temperature was fifth warmest on record. (Click NOAA image for larger
view of March 2007 statewide temperature rankings. Please credit
"NOAA.")

U.S. Temperature Highlights
For the contiguous U.S., last month's average temperature of 48.1
degrees F made it the second warmest March on record (based on
preliminary data). It was 5.6 degrees F (3.1 degrees C) warmer than
the 20th century mean of 42.5 degrees F (5.8 degrees C). Only March
1910 was warmer in the 113-year national record.

Statewide temperatures were much warmer than average from parts of the
Midwest and Deep South to the Northern Plains and West Coast. Most
Northeast states and Florida were near average, while no contiguous
U.S. state was cooler than average for the month. The month tied for
the warmest on record for Oklahoma.

More than 2,500 daily record-high temperatures were set from the East
to the West Coast during the month. On March 13 alone, more than 250
daily high temperature records were set. The earliest high of 90
degrees F (32 degrees C) occurred in Las Vegas that day. For March,
more than 200 daily record highs of 90 degrees F or greater were
registered in California, Arizona, Texas, Oklahoma and areas of the
Southeast.

The warmer-than-average March temperatures helped reduce residential
energy needs for the nation. Using the Residential Energy Demand
Temperature Index (REDTI-an index developed at NOAA to relate energy
usage to climate), the nation's residential energy demand was
approximately 11 percent lower than what would have occurred under
average climate conditions for the month.

Alaska had its third coldest March on record, with a temperature 12.5
degrees F (6.9 degrees C) cooler than average. Also, 40 new daily
record-low temperatures were tied, or broken, during March throughout
the state.

U.S. Precipitation Highlights
Precipitation was above average from parts of the Northeast to the
upper Midwest and from the northern Plains to Texas and New Mexico.
Much needed rain helped end drought in large parts of Texas. For
Texas, it was the wettest March on record. (Click NOAA image for
larger view of March 2007 statewide precipitation rankings. Please
credit "NOAA.")

Across the Deep South and Southeast, drier-than-average conditions
prevailed for a second straight month, worsening drought conditions.
Six states were much drier than average from Louisiana and Arkansas to
Florida. It was the second driest March on record for Mississippi and
the third driest for Alabama.

At the end of March, severe drought stretched from southeastern
Mississippi to northwest Georgia and Tennessee and also affected
southern Florida.

The combination of unusual warmth and below-average snowfall during
much of the month led to a continued deterioration of mountain
snowpack conditions in California, Arizona, Nevada and Utah.

At the end of March, mountain snowpack was less than 50 percent of
average in parts of every state in the West and less than 25 percent
of average in several states.

In Los Angeles, the lack of rainfall led to the driest water-year to
date for the city since records began in 1877. From July 1, 2006,
through the end of March, downtown Los Angeles had received only 2.47
inches of rain, almost one foot below the normal amount of rainfall
for the period.

In the West, where mountain snowpack is relied upon to supply water
needs throughout the region, below-average rain and snowfall have
become increasingly common. In only two of the past nine years has
snowpack on April 1 been at or above the long-term average in at least
half the region.

Near the end of March, approximately 33 percent of the contiguous U.S.
was in moderate to exceptional drought, according to the federal U.S.
Drought Monitor. The most severe conditions were in northern Alabama,
southern California, western Arizona, parts of the western High Plains
and extreme northern Minnesota.

Global Highlights
The combined global land and ocean surface temperature for March was
the fifth warmest on record (1.10 degrees F/0.61 degrees C above the
20th century mean). For the January-March year-to-date period, the
global surface temperature was second warmest on record. This was
slightly cooler than the same three-month period in 2002. The El Niño
episode that began in September 2006 rapidly weakened in February and
neutral conditions were present in March.

Separately, the global March land-surface temperature was the fourth
warmest on record, while the ocean-surface temperature tied for sixth
warmest in the 128-year period of record, approximately 0.2 degrees F
(0.1 degrees C) cooler than the record established during the very
strong El Niño episode of 1997-1998.

During the past century, global surface temperatures have increased at
a rate near 0.11 degrees F (0.06 degrees C) per decade, but the rate
of increase has been three times larger since 1976, or 0.32 degrees F
(0.18 degrees C) per decade, with some of the largest temperature
increases occurring in the high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere.

NOAA, an agency of the U.S. Commerce Department, is celebrating 200
years of science and service to the nation. From the establishment of
the Survey of the Coast in 1807 by Thomas Jefferson to the formation
of the Weather Bureau and the Commission of Fish and Fisheries in the
1870s, much of America's scientific heritage is rooted in NOAA. NOAA
is dedicated to enhancing economic security and national safety
through the prediction and research of weather and climate-related
events and information service delivery for transportation, and by
providing environmental stewardship of the nation's coastal and marine
resources. Through the emerging Global Earth Observation System of
Systems (GEOSS), NOAA is working with its federal partners, more than
60 countries and the European Commission to develop a global
monitoring network that is as integrated as the planet it observes,
predicts and protects.

Relevant Web Sites
Climate of 2007: March in Historical Perspective

NOAA Drought Information Center

The real cause of so-called global warming is that their is too much bull
**** being spewed about it.

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

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.


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.

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_.

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.

[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.

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.

Were you lying then, or are you lying 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.


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?




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!

About time you took responsibility for that blatant falsehood.


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. By
your own admission, what you heard was Limbaugh playing audio of
_somebody_else_ attributing the attack to Saddam Hussein.




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.


Limbaughdidn't say that.


Correct. I said that.

The first time, yes. But when you came back this time, you didn't say that.
You implied that Limbaugh made the statement.







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.

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?


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.


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.

You can't have it both ways, Fred.


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?

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?

Why didn't he comment on the number before
or after?

Why don't you ask him?


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.

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. 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.

Sad.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

wrote:
(Doug Miller) wrote:

wrote:

(Doug Miller) wrote:


So much heat, so little light.

On Apr 24, 5:56 pm, Just Wondering wrote:
wrote:
(Doug Miller) wrote:

wrote:

(Doug Miller) wrote:

So much heat, so little light.

Hence the term 'limbotomy'.

--

FF

In article .com, wrote:
On Apr 24, 5:56 pm, Just Wondering wrote:
wrote:
(Doug Miller) wrote:

wrote:

(Doug Miller) wrote:

So much heat, so little light.

Hence the term 'limbotomy'.

Oh, the irony... his comment was a response to *your* post, not mine.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Doug Miller wrote:

In article .com, wrote:

On Apr 24, 5:56 pm, Just Wondering wrote:

wrote:

(Doug Miller) wrote:

wrote:

(Doug Miller) wrote:

So much heat, so little light.

Hence the term 'limbotomy'.


Oh, the irony... his comment was a response to *your* post, not mine.


I'm referring to youse guys' whole thread.

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

In article .com, wrote:
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.

Either you don't remember what you wrote, or you have a language comprehension
problem -- or you're just a liar.

This dispute started when you falsely claimed to have heard Rush Limbaugh
"attempting to deceive people into thinking that Saddam Hussein attacked the
WTC" and pointed to an earlier post in which you griped about one of his
broadcasts.

Having many times heard Limbaugh say the exact *opposite* of what you claim,
and instead *deride* those who claim it, I immediately wondered what on earth
you might have thought you heard. So I followed your link to see what you were
talking about.

And found that what you posted at the time was a statement that Limbaugh had
played a tape of _someone_else_ speaking. Someone that -- according to your
statement at the time -- Limbaugh had been *criticizing* minutes earlier.

Hence my charge that you mischaracterized what you wrote.

I don't know what Limbaugh's purpose might have been in playing that tape. You
don't either. You've expressed your *opinion*, your *inference*, of his
purpose. But you claimed that to be a *fact*.

And that's dishonest.

And so are you.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

On Apr 27, 8:40 am, (Doug Miller) wrote:

As per usual....Miller at his best. Why don't people just copy and
paste this generic banter of his and include it in their posts... to
save Doug some time.

Either you don't remember what you wrote,

you have a language comprehension problem

you're just a liar.

falsely claimed

attempting to deceive

you mischaracterized what you wrote.

And that's dishonest.

And so are you.


Regards,
Doug Miller


un-****ing-believable.