Re: LIMBAUGH ON TV

[Sandy Sandfort <sandfort@crl.com>]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                          SANDY SANDFORT
 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

C'punks,

Interestingly, Phill responded to my last message with both a
private one and a public one.  In the private one (which I 
mistakenly believed was sent to the list), he told me that he 
was declining the wager.  As his reasons, he mentioned that he 
was not as interested in money as I appeared to be.  To which I 
replied:

It's not about the money.  Phill knows that, I know that, and so
does everyone else.

He further chided that I could draw no other conclusions then
that he wasn't interested in the wager.  I responded:

Oh yes I can.  And fortunately, so can everyone else.  Better a 
live jackel than a dead lion, right? 

In Phill's recent public post he said:

> Actually the original reply I made was simply one of a number of 
> objections to what is a very silly argument. I could have equally
> answered that way had you actually proposed a duel or that we
> "step outside". It is a very silly mode of argument and desrves
> to be answered in the same manner (if at all).

Notice how Phil again proposes a straw man by making an implicit
analogy between trials by combat, and a wager, the outcome of
which would turn on the actual outcome of events forecast--in the
alternative--by Phil and myself.

> The essential humourless of your reply is indicated by your
> failure to realise that my conversion of your 25L into 2 cents
> was satirical.

Oh really?  Then how come you at first defended it with your
attempted face-saving "GBP" comment?

Really, Phill, have you know shame?


 S a n d y

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~