Segway PT Sighting Amsterdam!

[Civicsman]

What part of "I don't listen to Limbaugh" did you not understand? If I said that I do not listen to him, why on earth would you assume that I am aware of how he describes himself? That makes no sense at all.

I stated, "Of course, if one doesn't listen to Limbaugh, or if one doesn't read or listen to any other news service in North America, one might not have heard him say this".

This statement has two parts.

1. It acknowledges that one might not listen to Limbaugh.
2. It acknowledges that one might not read or listen to any source of news in North America.

I then go on to say, "Assuming that you are aware that Limbaugh describes himself as an "entertainer"..." This assumption is based on item #2 above being false, and that, in fact, you do actually actively seek information about the world outside your door. Pretty much every source of news, right, left, middle, print, broadcast, internet, has (had) been detailing Limbaugh's abuses of a young woman, and women in general, and his "apology".

Apparently you missed it. Thank you for clarifying that my point #2 above was, in fact, accurate. I apologize for thinking otherwise.

[KSagal]

Originally Posted by Civicsman

I stated, "Of course, if one doesn't listen to Limbaugh, or if one doesn't read or listen to any other news service in North America, one might not have heard him say this".

This statement has two parts.

1. It acknowledges that one might not listen to Limbaugh.
2. It acknowledges that one might not read or listen to any source of news in North America.

I then go on to say, "Assuming that you are aware that Limbaugh describes himself as an "entertainer"..." This assumption is based on item #2 above being false, and that, in fact, you do actually actively seek information about the world outside your door. Pretty much every source of news, right, left, middle, print, broadcast, internet, has (had) been detailing Limbaugh's abuses of a young woman, and women in general, and his "apology".

Apparently you missed it. Thank you for clarifying that my point #2 above was, in fact, accurate. I apologize for thinking otherwise.

I did not miss anything. I do listen to many news sources. I do not listen to Limbaugh. I am not fixated on him like some are, and to say that a person who does not listen to how Limbaugh describes himself is therefore not paying attention to anything about the world outside my door is so silly that it defies my desire to even respond.

This topic is not news, it does not matter, and there is a lot of news in the world that does not include Limbaugh, his opinion of himself, or your opinion of him. If you think he is so important, that not paying attention to this made up controversy equates to not paying attention to any media or news in print or broadcast in the United States then you need to have your priorities realigned to reflect real news, real events, and real life. Sorry, but you are just too fixated here.

I will go back to my original statement. I do not listen to Limbaugh. It really is not that hard to understand if you try. He is just not that important to me. I can understand that he and what he says is to important to you that you SAID it cannot be avoided, but I do not agree. I do not take much effort at not listening to him, I just don't.

Lets move on.

One little thing that just came to mind. I stated that this was clearly a political attack, and in defense of that, I wonder why we are not debating Bill Maher and the far more vile and nasty things he has called women. I do not listen to him either, but did hear of some his rantings in other news sources. Now, I only offer this up because while I do not listen to either man, I am not unaware that they exist. As you said, you have to go out of your way to not hear about them. I do not specifically know the details about Maher's mutterings either, and do no know how he describes himself, but heard that some of what he said was far more extreme than what has reportedly been what Limbaugh has said.

So, who is the more egregious of the two?

[Civicsman]

1.

If I said that I do not listen to him, why on earth would you assume that I am aware of how he [Limbaugh] describes himself?

Pretty much every source of news, right, left, middle, print, broadcast, internet, has (had) been detailing Limbaugh's abuses of a young woman, and women in general, and his "apology".

Apparently you missed it.

2.

I did not miss anything. I do listen to many news sources....

3.

... but heard that some of what he said was far more extreme than what has reportedly been what Limbaugh has said.

(underlined emphasis added to quotes 1,2,3)

The first statement strongly implies (without actually saying so) that you do not know how Limbaugh describes himself.

Statements 2 and 3 claim otherwise.

The difference between Limbaugh and Maher, though a red herring here, is a potentially interesting question. As it is posed by a person who readily claims he has only a marginal knowledge of Maher's statements, and not even a passing knowledge of what Limbaugh actually said, I'll hold the arguments on that sub-topic until someone else with knowledge of the situation chimes in.

[KSagal]

Originally Posted by Civicsman

1.



2.

3.

(underlined emphasis added to quotes 1,2,3)

The first statement strongly implies (without actually saying so) that you do not know how Limbaugh describes himself.

Statements 2 and 3 claim otherwise.

The difference between Limbaugh and Maher, though a red herring here, is a potentially interesting question. As it is posed by a person who readily claims he has only a marginal knowledge of Maher's statements, and not even a passing knowledge of what Limbaugh actually said, I'll hold the arguments on that sub-topic until someone else with knowledge of the situation chimes in.

You will hold the topic because there is no defense for you attacking one because of a minor indiscretion and giving a pass to the other for a major indiscretion, because the latter shares your opinions.

You don't seem to want to acknowledge that I can hear people talking about something, be aware that they are talking about it, and still not care what the details are, as is the case with Limbaugh. Much of the media share your views of him, as he is right of center, so they attack without much regard for the truth. Much of the same way how the same people give a pass for Maher, because he is left of center, and is far more vile and insulting.

There is no way you can claim that you will not discuss this with me because of my limited knowledge of the actual utterings of these two, because you have spent the last two pages of this thread hammering me about how I must know about Limbaugh, because he is so important to you, and ignoring the multiple statements from me about how is so unimportant to me. All of the sudden, the topic is no longer valid, because your poster boy Maher is now in the soup, so instead of standing up with the same aggression about attacking Limbaugh, you want the whole thing to drop...

[Civicsman]

...you have spent the last two pages of this thread hammering me about how I must know about Limbaugh

Yep. Based on your own comments, I very much think you DO know the details of what transpired regarding Limbaugh's latest flap, but you have repeatedly claimed you do not.

If you are willing to publicly admit that you have been ..um.. misrepresenting your knowledge of the Limbaugh situation (and the details of Mahre's transgressions, for that matter), and that you do, in fact, have enough knowledge about both situations to hold up one end of a discussion, then we can have a go at the topic.

[KSagal]

Originally Posted by Civicsman

Yep. Based on your own comments, I very much think you DO know the details of what transpired regarding Limbaugh's latest flap, but you have repeatedly claimed you do not.

If you are willing to publicly admit that you have been ..um.. misrepresenting your knowledge of the Limbaugh situation (and the details of Mahre's transgressions, for that matter), and that you do, in fact, have enough knowledge about both situations to hold up one end of a discussion, then we can have a go at the topic.

Nice try.

Let me see if I can say this in a way you will understand. I know it can be difficult.

I do not listen to Limbaugh. I have not heard about how he describes himself. I am not aware of any details of things he has said in the last several weeks, actually much longer. To date, my best source of things he has said has been your postings, and I know how biased you are, and your postings are, so I value their accuracy very little. So, I do not know his position, and do not care.

I do not listen to Maher. I have not heard how he describes himself, but have heard him in the past. I have seen news reports and clips in the news of him saying nasty and hateful things about many topics, including american service people and republican women. He came to my attention recently when he made a reported million dollar campaign contribution to a committee for the president. The report indicated that some people were complaining about Limbaugh and his comments, and that the Democrats in that committee were asked if they would return that money, and their response was that they would not.

More specific details on either I do not know, and to be honest, I do not care to know.

I do find it amusing that your knickers are in such a twist regarding my ignorance on Limbaugh, and I plan to do nothing about that ignorance. I had not planned to start listening to him, as I do not feel he has much to offer me, as neither kindred spirit nor enemy. The fact that my ignorance as to what he says is causing you so much excitement is just an unexpected bonus.

Have a nice day.

[Civicsman]

I do find it amusing that your knickers are in such a twist regarding my ignorance on Limbaugh, and I plan to do nothing about that ignorance.

Not at all. Your ignorance causes no twists. In fact, I find the admission that you were willing to engage in a debate about the similarities between Limbaugh and Maher, while at the same time maintaining that you knew nothing about (at least) one of the two situations, to be...entertaining.

You alleged, sir that I was unwilling to engage in a debate with you because my "poster boy Maher is now in the soup". In fact, I would be more than happy point out the differences, but in any debate there have to be two knowledgeable points of view.


Advice: Next time someone mentions Limbaugh on SC, try remember your stated position, "I don't listen to Limbaugh". "I do not know his position, and do not care." ... and move on to posting a reply to some other topic that you DO know something about.

Have a really special day!

[KSagal]

Originally Posted by Civicsman

Not at all. Your ignorance causes no twists. In fact, I find the admission that you were willing to engage in a debate about the similarities between Limbaugh and Maher, while at the same time maintaining that you knew nothing about (at least) one of the two situations, to be...entertaining.

You alleged, sir that I was unwilling to engage in a debate with you because my "poster boy Maher is now in the soup". In fact, I would be more than happy point out the differences, but in any debate there have to be two knowledgeable points of view.


Advice: Next time someone mentions Limbaugh on SC, try remember your stated position, "I don't listen to Limbaugh". "I do not know his position, and do not care." ... and move on to posting a reply to some other topic that you DO know something about.

Have a really special day!

I know enough about the situation to know that you have a problem with Limbaugh and brought him up first in this thread, and mentioned him in at least 9 postings, and called me a liar when I said I do not listen to him. Actually, you said I purposefully misrepresented my knowledge of his words. You do make me laugh.

In post #28, you said you agreed to a definition that no one offered (except possibly you) so it was a complete fabrication.j

In post # 32, you made up words and said that others said them, when they did not.

I responded 7 times telling you the degree I am familiar with Limbaugh statements to be, and that is not aware of his specific words for some time. Other than telling me I did not tell the truth, or that to be telling the truth I must not read or watch or listen to any news source outside of my house, you have no reason to disbelieve me.

Since I do not listen to Limbaugh, I am not in need of trying to remember what I have said here. One reason I do not lie, is that I do not need to try to remember what I said. So, thanks for that advice, but no thanks. You may try to take it yourself.

I would love to have you do your research, and find any reference I have ever made to having been a listener to him. Since I am not, I cannot imagine every having said I was. This is a simplicity that you may not be familiar with. You see, it is not hard to remember something I may have said, if I say the truth, then all I need do is remember what I do, not so much what I say, as they are the same thing.

In full disclosure, I have heard him years ago, and while I do not believe I ever listened to an entire show of his either on radio or television, I used to be more familiar with Limbaugh than I am currently.

So, again in response to your posting, yet again, telling me now that Maher is included in the debate, you will not debate it with me. Thanks for telling me again, as the last several times were not sufficient.

Have a nice day.

[Civicsman]

I do not doubt for one moment, sir, that you believe what you are writing.

In post #28, you said you agreed to a definition that no one offered (except possibly you) so it was a complete fabrication.

My statement from Post 28

I was agreeing that Limbaugh is very successful in his self-described role as an entertainer, just like those world-wide wrestling folks are self-described entertainers, not really wrestlers.

In fact, I was agreeing to your statement that "It could be said that [Limbaugh] is a sheep herder. And he is not alone, although he is very accomplished in his chosen variant on his profession.

Now, I think most everyone knows that Rush Limbaugh is not literally a "sheep herder". I suppose some confused literalists might have thought the sheep herder statement to be a "complete fabrication." Not me! I took it to be be a metaphor. Perhaps I was wrong to do so. However, Rush Limbaugh HIMSELF said (repeatedly) that he is an "entertainer". Some may claim they do not know this, but it is a fact that anyone can easily verify for themselves. Hopefully there is no argument that he is successful at it. Consequently, I agreed with the fact that he is a successful entertainer, and drew the comparison between Limbaugh the entertainer. and chair-whomping TV wrestler entertainers. A completely valid comparison, although clearly unpopular with some.

In post # 32, you made up words and said that others said them, when they did not.

My quote from Post 32

So, you're saying that you think Limbaugh CAN buy more Oxycontin with his $50 million per year than some other guys?

First of all, my sentence clearly ends with a question mark. In the English language, this is an important distinction. This sentence draws on the fact that Limbaugh the Entertainer was demanding harsh sentences for drug addicts, while himself being a law-breaking Oxycontin addict. Nevertheless, I am still pretty certain that most people recognize this statement for exactly what it is; sarcasm.

...telling me now that Maher is included in the debate, you will not debate it with me.

You have repeatedly claimed you know essentially nothing about Limbaugh's statements of the last couple weeks, and you only have minimal knowledge of Maher's past statements. Although some people have no need for facts, I do not see how it is possible to adequately defend a point of view without them. Consequently, I think it likely that you're simply trolling, hoping that I'll take the bait, whereupon you can say, "I told you I don't care about this".

So, yes, I'd be happy to debate Limbaugh vs Maher: Who is more egregious? . Bring it on. Make a cogent statement about what was said by each party and when, and lay out your reasons for claiming that Maher has made more egregious statements. Start by providing the KSAGAL definition of "egregious".

Have a super-splendiferous day!

[Bob.Kerns]

While I might be one of the few people who'd find such a debate entertaining (having sufficient respect for the resilience of both parties) ... I have to question whether this would be the best forum for such a discussion?

I'd offer you my own blog, but I don't want to bother my own readers. But you could set up a blog for the purpose.