Re: LIMBAUGH ON TV

[Sandy Sandfort <sandfort@crl.com>]

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

C'punks,

On Thu, 25 Jul 1996 hallam@Etna.ai.mit.edu wrote:

> ...Since you can't take a hint and your arguments are now
> tiresome rather than amusing I'll tell it to you straight:

But I have made no arguments.  I have merely proposed a wager.
 
> As with Rush I don't have the slightest respect for your mode
> of argument.

Again, no argument was offered only a wager.  (Phill's respect
for my "mode of arguing" is certainly irrelevant to me as I
imagine it is to the bulk of readers of this list.)

> You attempt to introduce "proof by wager" as a valid form of
> argument.

This straw man was previously addressed.  No one but Phill has
suggested that wagers are a form of proof.  (If you can quote me
as suggesting otherwise, Phill, I'd be happy to explain to you
where you've gotten it wrong.)

> You introduce irrelevant factors such whether Rush is richer
> than I am,...

Apparently, Phill has lost track of which member of his enemies
list made which statements.  I, of course, never mentioned Rush's
wealth one way or the other.

> In short your arguments

I made none.  Phill should check his facts.

> are remarkably similar to those of your hero Rush,

Rush is not my hero. I never said he was.  Phill should check his 
facts.

> fatuous, invalid logic, irrelevant facts and gratuitous insults.
> I think you are a fool,

Res ipsa loquitur.

> I think that Rush is a fool and I don't consider that I need
> prove anything to you.

True, but without meaning to, Phill has proven quite a lot about
himself right here in front of god and everybody.  It ain't a
pretty picture is it?


 S a n d y

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