Re: LIMBAUGH ON TV

[hallam@Etna.ai.mit.edu]

>> 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?

Because your continued attempts to prop up what is a very
silly argument with even sillier ones is a source of amusement.
I had not at that point abandoned the satirical mode. Since
you can't take a hint and your arguments are now tiresome
rather than amusing I'll tell it to you straight:


As with Rush I don't have the slightest respect for your mode
of argument. You attempt to introduce "proof by wager" as a 
valid form of argument. You introduce irrelevant factors 
such whether Rush is richer than I am, something which you 
have no means of knowing and as it happens I don't know 
either. I don't know how rich you get by lying to the
American public and I haven't the foggiest idea what my 
portfolio is worth. There are only two levels of wealth 
"enough" and "not enough". I fall into the first category, 
Rush Limbaugh and yourself will fall into the latter 
regardless of how much money you earn.


In short your arguments are remarkably similar to those of
your hero Rush, fatuous, invalid logic, irrelevant facts and
gratuitous insults.

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


		Phill