So, Scylla, are you trolling, or what? (Rush Limbaugh GD thread)

Scylla, come on down and explain how this isn’t trollery.

For those who’d rather not go there, Scylla opens up with what appears to be a satirical post, claiming that “Rush Limbaugh is by far the most accurate and most correct person in the news industry.”

He has not admitted to having engaged in parody, but has defended his OP…cryptically, I’d say.

Whether or not his initial goal was to get people riled and angry, he seems to have happily gone with the flow when that occured, keeping up a regular matador’s moving target of justifications for why he doesn’t have to engage the points that the other debaters have raised.

Scylla, I think you’re trolling. Convince me otherwise.

No offense, but does he HAVE to?

Under normal circumstances, I respect your vigilance, RTFirefly. I met you a couple years back and you seem like a stand-up guy as well.
But between this and the “bike cops/red lights” thread, I think you might have hit a sensitive patch.

I think it is obvious that it is satire. Maybe he wants it to keep going and be and interactive satire. There is nothing wrong with that. Scylla runs marathons. Rush Limbaugh couldn’t run around his desk. They are obviously very distinct individuals.


Why is it my job to convince you that I’m not trolling?

Unless this is the Spanish Inquistion (which I never expected) or unless you are willing to show me your credentials as an IRS auditor or a long lost member of the League of Night and Fog, than it is your job to substantiate your allegations.

Seriously, who do you think you are that I need to prove my innocence to you just because you’ve bothered to voice an accusation?

Could you at least spell out what you wish to debate in that thread?

Well, if he does not, then he is engaged in a bannable offense.

The intention then is to make people who know things like this into reacting negatively:

Really, when the “most perfect newsman” is telling you the [del]propaganda[/del] show will go on, that defending Rush as a newsman is ridiculous, add to that an unnecessary show of jerkiness to others replying in the GD thread and I see a monster in action.

And I’m not talking the 6 headed kind one…

Because of the sheer insanity of the OP – which he refuses acknowledge.

Guess I am not much a groupie, for I don’t particularly follow RT around (or anyone else really) reading all of his/their posts, but the ones I have read by him, for the most part, seem well-constructed and backed by RT himself.

Didn’t read that thread. Would you be kind enough to give a brief synopses of RT’s claims and what you found so objectionable?

And for the time being, absent a clear explanation from Scylla himself, I’m afraid “trolling” for responses/outrage seems to be the only logical explanation of Scylla’s latest chapter of his rather lenghty attemption-whoring ways.

Unless, of course, you also happen to think that Rush is a paladin of all that’s right – and therefore incapable of being wrong.

A mortal god, if you would, as Scylla would have you believe in the Pitted thread…

Well… no.

I mean, he would be if a Mod were asking him, in a Mod capacity, to explain his actions.

But RTFirefly is not. RTF is upset, granted.

But I don’t think that one member being upset at another is cause to institute proceedings.

That’s the only point I’m making, really, that RTF seems a bit touchy lately. It’s been commented on in the “bike cops” thread as well.

Less than two hours from Scylla’s OP to the Pit? Couldn’t you have waited a while to see how it actually turns out?

Ok. I think it’s pretty obvious that Rush Limbaugh is not making that argument I have linked to as one to be taken at face value. I think he is really arguing the logically fallacy of the manmade global warming crowd which is attempting to win the argument by acclaim or proclamation rather than by logic.

I think Rush Limbaugh is correct and that this type of argument is intrinsically fallacious, and that the self-evidence of this is demostrable within his mimicry of that argument.

I beleieve that he has made a good and clever argument worthy of discussion, and that he has successfully refuted this tactic.

Personally, I have come to the conclusion that the arguments for manmade global warming are strong arguments and likely correct.

The argument that the theory is “correct” because there is a “consensus” or the “debate is over” are very bad arguments and are worthy of ridicule no matter what one personally beleives.

Seconded, with a twirl for pizazz.

Well, two things:

  1. If there is a well-worded Pit about one of the many objectionable practices of this administration, it’s likely that RTF wrote it. I read the Pit; I generally read it first. The people who repeat-post here get noticed.

  2. I met him at a Dopefest a couple years ago. He seemed cool.

THAT’s my point. RTF normally is spot-on in his pittings. These last two, in my opinon, not so much.

Go read it. You may have a different take than me.

OK, I have NO idea where you got this.

RTF has the right to call the attention of the mods in the pit, check the rules.

On top of that, I already pointed to the mods in GD that if that was a parody thread it is silly, but if he is serious, then the Mods should intervene or at least they should put the thread in the right location.

How do you reconcile these two obviously contradicting statements?

Are you saying that poor ole Rush has never been privy (never mind doing his own research which with no doubt will lead him to those same arguments that convinced you) to the scientific articles that make a convincing/air-tight case for global-warning? I’d say if that’s the case, it only demonstrates willful ignorance on the part of your ineffable idol.

Well, sure he does. But he doesn’t have the authority to demand an answer from Scylla.

If he wanted to call the Mods’ attention to something, he could have reported the post and mentioned in his e-mail what he thought was the nature of the trollery.

Instead, he’s calling Scylla himself out in a public forum, and asking for a response from Scylla. Scylla is perfectly free to give one if he chooses, but he certainly doesn’t HAVE to.

You do see the difference, no?

And **Scylla ** does not need to reply…

oops, too late.

It seems you are “just saying”, so am I.

But… did you have to be such a dick about it?

I’d prefer to address such a question in the GD thread and confine this one to the accusation of trolling in order to keep things on topic and segregrated thus avoiding hijacks.

If you’d reask it there I’ll be happy to reply. Thanks.

A link might come in handy oif you know what I mean.

'cause it appears pretty clear to me you haven’t bothered to read the thread that prompted this one?

Rush Limbaugh, most perfect newsman

I mean, even the title reels of trolling/attention-whoring to me.

YMMV, of course. But I’d like to know why, because what he wrote is demonstrably bullshit of the highest order.

I don’t think I was being a dick, but, to answer your question. Yes, I did have to do it that way. Rush Limbaugh has not explained that his statements refer to global warming arguments. I simply think they are and think it’s obvious.

I cannot state for a fact that the argument is not being made at face value, though I think it’s obvious to any reader that it is not.