Of course, this being GD, eventually even an excuse of a whoosh is no excuse to become a jerk IMHO
OK, this joke has gone far enough. At least I think it’s a joke. Isn’t it?
If not, my friend, you’ve finally left the part of the world that some of us like to call Reality.
The issue is Limbaugh’s accuracy, and you have totally and completely failed to prove or even argue he was right about any of the stories RedFury cited.
As for “the argument submitted for debate in this thread” – that Limbaugh can be presumed accurate because of the size of his audience – that is dismissable and unworthy of serious debate.
Bullshit. Many time more people choose to get their news from Friends than from Rush Limbaugh. He is therefore deposed by an oligarchy of news reporters living in underpriced apartments in Manhattan. QED!
Daniel
If I or elucidator or RTFirefly had posted the OP, you could presume it was a joke. Coming from Scylla, I can’t believe it’s not intended seriously.
Tell your dear buddy Rush to go fact-check ‘megalomaniac’.
Of course Scylla will stipulate that, especially as Fahrenheit 9/11 has a consensus of consumers of documentaries as the most accurate.
(Son of a gun, Moore has got three of the top eleven!)
Out of bounds and condescending.
Are you sure you started this thread with a genuine interest in it being a GD topic?
–
And yes, Geo, certainly appears I’ve been whooshed. Still fail to get the point of Scylla’s OP though – especially here in GD.
What’s to debate?
But thanks for the heads-up all the same my friend.
You are innacurately characterizing my OP. I am comparing apples to apples. Rush to other newspersons.
Your mischaracterization serves to strengthen my argument. If I were to say Rush limbaugh is the strongest person in the whole world, you could not refute that by saying that he is not strong enough to beat up everybody in NYC, LA, or Detroit, simultaneously.
I said Rush Limbaugh has many times the audience of any other person in the news. Similarly, you cannot refute that by claiming that some whole entire networks likely have largely audiences.
You’ve made a truly ridiculous argument.
No, my friend. The word you are looking for here is “unamimous.” Unanimous would be synonymous with undisputed, and that is clearly not what I am claiming as I have stated the existance of Rush deniers within my OP.
A majority is simply more than 50%. a Consensus occurs when you have a supermajority to such a degree that you reach a “harmonious accord”
You’ve attempted to discredit Rush (like he said you would) with false logic. “Consensus” does not equal unanimity, contrary to your attempt to falsely characterize it this way.
“Supermajority” and “consensus” are (of course) synonymous.
My cite, maestro:
Concede now, and I will spare you the further humiliations awaiting.
Most certainly.
If Rush is a newsperson, so are Rachel, Ross, and Joey. He is as much a newsperson as is the dead skin on my big toe. Comparing his ratings to the ratings of real newspeople is not, repeat, not an apples to apples comparison.
Daniel
You said it. Now prove it.
And then show relevance. If Limbaugh has a larger audience than any other newsman:
-
That still does not equal a supermajority of the entire news-consuming public.
-
And that merely means he is more popular than other newsmen, not that he has a better track record for accuracy. Reality does not automatically conform itself to public opinion.
::sigh::
Tomndeb tried to undermine Rush’s consensus by comparing him to entire networks. You seek to undermine his single person by comparing with an entire category.
It does not matter how many people trust their friends, or their Mom’s more than Rush Limbaugh because we all do not share the same friends or the same Mom.
I’m going with a global warming parody. Not a very good one.
As the other fun hole in his logic (I’m assuming Rush offered us this rant as the political equivalent of Soduku, a puzzle for wonks to solve), how do you get anything approaching a majority out of his audience share, let alone a supermajority? Is anyone seriously claiming that more people listen to Rush than to all other “newspeople” put together? I mean, you yourself admitted that Rush has a smaller share than just the people on a single network. If that’s the case, how could he possibly have a majority of the listeners among the entire news audience?
No, the word you’re looking for isn’t supermajority, it isn’t majority, and it sure as hell isn’t concensus. It might be “plurality.”
Daniel
Agreed. Among scientists, a consensus actually means something.
Fair enough. “Friends” had six stars, right? Rachel, Ross, Phoebe, Joey, Chandler, and that irritating skeleton. I’m guessing that if you divide their audience share by six, they each still have a bigger share than Rush.
Maybe there’s some sort of synergy going on.
But if you reject that, I’ll compare Rush to the Maytag repair man, who probably has a larger audience share.
Daniel
It’s Gigo, of course. :smack:
Apologies.
If that’s the case (and the thought had occurred to me, only I dismissed it, perhaps giving Scylla more credit than he deserves), it’s really lame. The flaws in any such analogy are so great that anyone not obsessed with their own wittiness would spot them immediately and reject the analogy. Shit, my comparison between Rush and Ross is a better analogy than the one between Rush and Global Warming, and I saw the flaws in my analogy pretty quickly.
Daniel
I gave you a cite. Do you have one to refute it?
I merely claimed “consensus” which my dictionary defines as a majority. It was Tomndeb who told me Rush represented a “supermajority.” I was pleased to hear it and I suspected as much. However, I was unwilling to state it until I knew it was a fact.
Once Tomndeb stated that Rush had a “Supermajority” I knew it was true, because Tomndeb would never lie to me.
You’re not saying he lied, are you?
Do we not live in “Consensus reality?” Is that not truth?
Are you suggesting that there is a higher reality independant of our opinions and beleifs that is immalleable and unmanipulable by them?