Re: LIMBAUGH ON TV

[hallam@Etna.ai.mit.edu]

>That's L25, not 25L.  I though Phil was a UK "subject," thus
>I proposed a wager of 25 Pounds Sterling.  Clear enough?

The generaly accepted abreviation is GBP.

>If Phil wants to do it all in US dollars then I will bet US$50
>against his US$45.  

How about hard currency? I prefer Swiss francs (CHF).


>If Phil really believes he and I are at any credible legal risk 
>for a making such a personal wager, he is a fool.  If he really
>knows better (my best guess), then he is intellectually dishonest 
>and a moral coward.

The moral point is not that there is risk of being caught, it
is that society has made laws and unless there are exceptional
circumstances it is a duty to obey those laws.

I don't argue against breaking laws which are immoral, indeed 
I am still refusing to pay a Poll tax bill from the UK despite
the fact that the amount outstanding is inconsequential.


>I again invite Phil to put up or shut up.


You sound like an 18th century fop challenging someone to a duel.

I do not believe that Aristotle listed "challenging to a bet"
as one of his modes of reason.


Rush has been rejected by the very free market principles he
espouses which destroys his case through self contradiction.
On the other hand I have not asserted that premise, arguments
ad pecuniam are therefore irrelevant.


The fact remains that the lack of Rush on TV has an explanation
considerably less charitable than Rush's claim. Whether Rush 
returns to TV or not is of very little interest to me except
insofar as it would reduce the already sparse options for
TV entertainment in Cambridge.

Would you believe that Continental is so lame that they do not
offer either the Sci-Fi channel nor the comedy channel in the
home town of MIT and Harvard? If I had realised that NBC 
Olympic coverage would be as bad as it is I might have got a
satelite dish to pick up the feed from Astra.


		Phill