[QUOTE=Scylla]
That is all very well and good, but you have totally and completely failed to actually address the argument submitted for debate in this thread. Coming from you, such a complete and total failure is not unexpected.
Nobody, least of all me, is disputing that there are some ignorant “Rush Deniers” out there, living in a fantasy who take issue with the Great One’s accuracy. That these misguided groups and individuals exist is a fact I have already stated.
We can simply dismiss these “Rush Deniers” and their arguments out of hand, as fantasies. The debate is over. It is no longer open. It is no longer reasonable to tolerate such viewpoints, or treat them with a respect.
Rush Limbaugh has a clear consensus among consumers of news speaking for his accuracy.
Mediamatters nothing more than a smear cite seeking to capitolize on Rush Limbaugh’s popularity and reputation by besirching it.
It enjoys no such consensus among serious consumers of news. It and you are dismissable and unworthy of serious debate.
[/QUOTE]
Of course, this being GD, eventually even an excuse of a whoosh is no excuse to become a jerk IMHO
[QUOTE=Scylla]
That is all very well and good, but you have totally and completely failed to actually address the argument submitted for debate in this thread.
[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=Scylla]
Yes, that’s right! Rush Limbaugh is by far the most accurate and most correct person in the news industry.
There are so many ways that one can get one’s news and opinions concerning world events. TV, newspapers, the internet, and radio are but a few of the choices that are available to today’s consumer of news. Rush Limbaugh though, commands a wider audience than any other individual purveyor of news and opinion currently available to the American people.
Many times so.
Of all the places that consumers of news could choose they choose Rush Limbaugh more than anybody else.
[/QUOTE]
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!
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Michael Moore had Fahrenheit 9/11 carefully fact-checked by a team of attorneys before he released it. Are you willing to stipulate to the film’s accuracy on that basis?
[/QUOTE]
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!)
[QUOTE=tomndebb]
Oh, piffle. Rush does not have “many times” the audience of CNN or CBS or ABC or NBC. He has “many times” the audience of the next most popular blowhard pundit. You started this off with a claim for “news” and he is not in the “news” business.
[/quote]
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.
[QUOTE=Scylla]
You are innacurately characterizing my OP. I am comparing apples to apples. Rush to other newspersons.
[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=Scylla]
I said Rush Limbaugh has many times the audience of any other person in the news.
[/quote]
You said it. Now prove it.
[QUOTE=Scylla]
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”
[/quote]
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.
[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
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
[/QUOTE]
::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.
[QUOTE=Scylla]
That is all very well and good, but you have totally and completely failed to actually address the argument submitted for debate in this thread. Coming from you, such a complete and total failure is not unexpected.
Nobody, least of all me, is disputing that there are some ignorant “Rush Deniers” out there, living in a fantasy who take issue with the Great One’s accuracy. That these misguided groups and individuals exist is a fact I have already stated.
We can simply dismiss these “Rush Deniers” and their arguments out of hand, as fantasies. The debate is over. It is no longer open. It is no longer reasonable to tolerate such viewpoints, or treat them with a respect.
Rush Limbaugh has a clear consensus among consumers of news speaking for his accuracy.
Mediamatters nothing more than a smear cite seeking to capitolize on Rush Limbaugh’s popularity and reputation by besirching it.
It enjoys no such consensus among serious consumers of news. It and you are dismissable and unworthy of serious debate.
[/QUOTE]
I’m going with a global warming parody. Not a very good one.
[QUOTE=Scylla]
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”
[/QUOTE]
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.”
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.
[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Agreed. Among scientists, a consensus actually means something.
[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
You said it. Now prove it.
[/quote]
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?