NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/alt/fan/rushlim/8679

Text File | 1992-11-17 | 5.2 KB | 112 lines

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Path: sparky!uunet!destroyer!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!usenet.ucs.indiana.edu!psygate.psych.indiana.edu!nate
From: [e-mail] (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: You don't listen to/watch the shows. So why post here?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
Nntp-Posting-Host: mushroom.psych.indiana.edu
Organization: Indiana University
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]: Psych Department, Indiana University
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 21:13:20 GMT
Lines: 99

[e-mail] (Thomas Richard Stevenson) writes:
>[e-mail] (Nathan Engle) writes:
>>>I don't see
>>>what being a "total Limbaugh virgin" has to do with making a comment?

>>    It doesn't have anything to do with just making general comments. It
>>has a *lot* to do with making specific criticisms of Rush.

>I never made a specific criticism of Rush. What I said, three times with
>this one, is that if all the things people said about him were true (which
>I never said was true), and wasn't just based on bias (which it could have
>been), he should be ashamed of him self for making fun of a little girl. I
>never said he was wrong. I didn't say he was guilty of any wrong doing.

    You're getting uncomfortably close to intellectual disingenuity here.
If you don't think that Rush was guilty of wrong doing then why do you
think he should be ashamed of himself?

>I didn't say that he should be ashamed of him self (unqualified). All you
>have to do to shot me down is to say that people weren't telling the truth
>because they had a bias toward Rush. If you can't tell me that, than I
>have no idea why you are getting upset with what I said (actually you're
>not getting upset with what I said, but with how you misinterpreted what
>I said).

    Well, in real actual fact, I'm not upset with what you said OR what
I miscontrued as your meaning. My only investment in this discussion is
to let you know why your credibility is low concerning your opinions
about Rush. I don't mind your lack of credibility if you don't.

>>    This is why I don't think that Rush is a racist; he occasionally has
>>non-white anglo-saxon callers and he treats them with the utmost courtesy.
...
>>Even John
>>Switzer's excellent transcripts cannot really convey the quintessential
>>Rush. For that you must watch, listen, and judge for yourself.

>I'm not sure why you bring any of this up unless you are trying to make
>others think that I think Rush is a racist.

    You're trying too hard to read something into my example. I don't know
nor do I care what your opinions of Rush are vis a vis racism. I was merely
trying to give an example of another issue on which many people seem to
have incorrect impressions about Rush's stance. In practically every such
case these incorrect impressions are formed without really knowing what
Rush really says.

>This is not the case. I
>never suggested that Rush is a racist. I'm very confused to your reason
>for including the above.

    It was just an example. Sorry if it looked like a trap. The only reason
it's confusing you is that you're thinking too hard about it.

>>    To be honest with you, I didn't see the TV show segment in which the
>>Millie/Chelsea switcharoo took place.

>You didn't see it, but it ok for you to make comments about it, but it's
>not ok for me to make comments about it. I see how it works now.

    What comments have I made about Rush's Millie/Chelsea switch?

>>All I heard was the apology that
>>Rush gave on the radio program the next day. From that apology I'm sure
>>that Rush agrees with you that making fun of little girls is wrong. How
>      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>many times does he have to apologize for it?

>So Rush agress with me? So why are you all over me for making comments that
>even Rush agrees with????

    Hey, if I was going to jump all over you then you'd be a lot madder
at me than you are now. All I'm doing is offering constructive advice.

>As far as "How many times does he have to apologize
>for it?", that's a point of view that each person has to make. I don't think
>he should have done it in the first place, but given that he did, I would
>say one time is enough. But I could see that others might feel that no number
>of times is enough.

    Perhaps.

>But again, I don't think I said he should apologize, I said
>he should be ashamed of him self (if it were true).

    Very good point. Rush's public apology was above and beyond what you
were asking of him. Since he went to the effort of making the apology I'd
say that we can assume that he's not proud of the episode regardless of
whether it was an honest mistake, so you've gotten your wish. Congrats.

> How he goes about
>feeling ashamed of him self is completely up to him.

    Somehow I doubt that it will weigh very heavily on his conscience.

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
[e-mail]      [e-mail]