Originally Posted By Eric Paddon "I didn't "shoot the messenger." That is, again, simply false." You dismissed the factual information furnished in the report simply because you hate the politics of the person who gathered the information and let your prejudice dismiss the facts without having to comment on them. I call that "shooting the messenger" by the objective definition of the term. "I find it interesting that you are now attempting to change the subject to another matter entirely" That's called making a comparative analogy to make a point, a classic and legitimate discussion technique. I noted how the standard you use to dismiss what is in the report is nothing at all like how those on my side would treat such a matter if we had a problem with the content of the report, and noted the difference as applied to the Dan Rather fraud. Hardly a case of straying off topic at all. Again, the burden is on *you* to explain why the story is not to be trusted and until you provide alternate information, I think the weakness of your gripe is pretty evident.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<Rush's high volume of listeners means one thing to me: His listeners like listening to hours of anger and hate.>> Tell me one thing Rush has said that was " hate " Mele. Then listen to Air America for a few minutes ( if you can find it on your radio anymore ) and tell me that these people don't spew hate like no other.
Originally Posted By jonvn "I did that. Your problem is you have a prejudicial hang-up regarding the source that is not valid criticism from my standpoint." Of course you didn't. You supplied an article by someone who is clearly against the ideology of the company they are talking about. There is nothing prejudicial on my part here, in that I am asking for a non-biased reporting of the facts, which you are simply unable to provide, making the entire original article even more suspect. "Why do you have a hang-up regarding an honest report about how bad the fortunes of this ballyhooed "network" is?" If you actually bothered to post an honest report, I wouldn't. As you did not post a report that is necessarily honest, I am simply replying to that. Your source is biased, and it is not necessarily reflective of the actual situation. Therefore, it its "honesty" is in question. Can't deal with that without attacking me, though, can you, eh? I find it very revealing in this exchange that while I've said nothing about you or the other person defending these articles personally, you both seem to feel a need to discuss my personal rationale, my personal reasonings, and me personally thorughout. Another sign of a very weak argument. In fact, you haven't even addressed my response at all, only to say "well, you're just such and such." That's no response. And it makes me believe that you have no response. At least, not one that makes any sense or is logical.
Originally Posted By Eric Paddon "You supplied an article by someone who is clearly against the ideology of the company they are talking about." So? The article deals with objective facutal information on the woes of Air America, and that's the only thing that's relevant to this topic. The only thing that can make the article "suspect" is if you point to specifics, and not use your prejudice which comes off as "I refuse to believe the facts until the New York Times tells me it's okay to believe them." Until you provide *factual* information of your own to explain what's wrong with the article I cited and why Air America is allegedly not in trouble, your argument hasn't a leg to stand on. And there is no personal attack aimed at you at what I write. Only an attack aimed at your methodological approach to evaluating factual information, which I don't think is an appropriate standard in any context.
Originally Posted By Eric Paddon And incidentally, you made your own methodological approach to evaluating objective source material an issue the instant you chose to impeach the source of this information without any credible evidence whatsoever beyond a personal prejudice. Furnish *specific* information to bolster your argument, and your methodological standards need not have to become an issue.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA Here's a very fair and balanced story about Rush Limbaugh. Cute picture of Rush there too. Hi Rush! You savage! <a href="http://dir.salon.com/story/opinion/feature/2005/05/28/harvard_abu_ghraib_play/index.html" target="_blank">http://dir.salon.com/story/opi nion/feature/2005/05/28/harvard_abu_ghraib_play/index.html</a>
Originally Posted By jonvn "Yet you have a message in what you say, which is that the writer's story was junk because he was "biased"." My message is precisely what my message is. Not what you say it is. "I have told you that the story was indeed accurate." And you are? Someone I should take as a source of information when you clearly are not able to respond in a reasonable manner to what I said? You are not a source of unbiased information, and you can't seem to locate one. "No... the main topic of this topic is Air America's woes" Which would be interesting if you could actually find a non-biased piece of writing that supports that. "These are facts that can be found in many places" Then I'm sure you'll be able to produce some. "So your premise that the story is junk is bogus." Of course it's not bogus. It is simply a statement that biased information on a subject is of little worth when discussing something where the bias comes into direct play on the matter. "If you can show where the writer is wrong then you could spout off that it is junk without being nailed." It is not up to me to produce evidence as to whether or not Air America is having problems. It was simply asked to supply a non-biased source for information on the subject. So....there a reason you can't do that? "If you want non biased reporting on the story you can go check the latest Arbitron ratings book and the financial records of Air America radio. That''s where the writer of this story got his information that you call junk." And you know what these are, I take it? And you know where to get this information, I further suppose? And you know this is where this guy got his information? And you know that this guy did not massage that information to make his particular viewpoint look stronger? You seem unable to even begin to give me a proper response to my requests. You just keep making insulting comments and repeating the same nonsense over and over again. Just put up some real information. That's what I asked for, and that's what you can't do. When you do put up real information, then a discussion can be framed around the facts of the matter, not what some conservative pundit might say are the facts of the matter. The actual truth. That is what I want to see, and not take some biased word on the matter.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<And it makes me believe that you have no response. At least, not one that makes any sense or is logical.>> Waht are you talking about? I have tyold you where you can get the hard facts about Air America radio if you don't trust the writer of this piece. But YOU called the story junk without being able to produce any evidence that what he said was incorrect. Eric is rigtht about the Dan Rather bogus document story. The conservatives took his " biased " story and provided massive, real, in your face evidence why the story was " junk " as you like to call this Air America story. It's on you to back up why it's junk. Saying the writer is biased is not enough if the facts are there. Using your logic, the NY Times being the most biased rag out there is all junk simply becuse the writers are flaming liberals. Bad example... the NY Times is easy to debunk. Air America being a failure is not easy to debunk because it is a failure by all measures.
Originally Posted By Eric Paddon "My message is precisely what my message is. Not what you say it is." And the article cited is precisely what the article says it is, a report on the very real woes of Air America, and not what you say it is.
Originally Posted By Eric Paddon Rush will always be a favorite target to hate by the Left for his helping to break the MSM monopoly on news outlets and providing talk radio with a nationwide outlet for the silent majority long since alienated by the arrogance of the news media. Personally, I don't listen to Rush much anymore because today there exist many new voices in the playing field who are doing the job much more eloquently nowadays, but my respect for how he paved the way will always be limitless. And as a pure broadcaster, he deserves every award he's ever received since his whole program for nearly 20 years rests on 15 solid hours a week of adlibbing with virtually no guests, and never a sidekick or any of the other devices most radio hosts have to resort to to fill air time. Mega dittos Rush, and thanks!
Originally Posted By jonvn "You dismissed the factual information" You didn't supply factual information, so it is impossible for me to dismiss it. "That's called making a comparative analogy" It's called changing the subject because you can't respond with even the simplest request for a non-biased source of information on the matter. "Again, the burden is on *you* to explain why the story is not to be trusted" Um, gee, maybe because it was written by someone with a clear bias? As has been said multiple times to you? "The article deals with objective facutal information on the woes of Air America" Does it? Then you should be able to find some factual information from an unbiased source that says the same thing. "and not use your prejudice which comes off as "I refuse to believe the facts until the New York Times tells me it's okay to believe them."" Since I don't read the New York Times, I rather don't know where you would get this idea. This is called another "strawman" argument, where you put words in my mouth that I never said because your own argument is so pathetically weak that it can not stand on its own merits. Simply point out an unbiased source. "And there is no personal attack aimed at you at what I write." Of course there is. You are saying I believe nothing unless the NY Times says it is true, for example. That is an attack. I simply asked for an unbiased source of information. One which you are apparently unable to supply. "you made your own methodological approach to evaluating objective source material an issue the instant you chose to impeach the source of this information without any credible evidence whatsoever beyond a personal prejudice. Furnish *specific* information to bolster your argument," My argument is that the author of this article you posted is biased. I already supplied specific information in the first response that said this. So I've already complied with your request.
Originally Posted By jonvn "nd the article cited is precisely what the article says it is, a report on the very real woes of Air America, and not what you say it is." I said it was a biased article, because the author has a clear political agenda, which you have basically agreed with by saying "SO?" in one of your responses. "Waht are you talking about? I have tyold you where you can get the hard facts about Air America radio if you don't trust the writer of this piece." You told me to go look at Arbitron ratings and the finances of AA. Supply them. If you can't supply them, then you don't know them any more than anyone else. Once you do supply them, then there can be a discussion regarding AA. Until then, you have supplied absolutely nothing. "But YOU called the story junk without being able to produce any evidence that what he said was incorrect. " Yes, because as I've said several times now, it is junk because the author has a clear politcal agenda and bias. That is what I've said. I then said "supply unbiased facts." You can't do it. So the article looks more and more like the junk it first appeared to be. "Using your logic, the NY Times being the most biased rag out there is all junk simply becuse the writers are flaming liberals." I couldn't care less about the NY Times. Don't change the subject. Simply produce unbiased information, if you can.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy hey jon, why not just admit that you calling the story "junk" just because the writer had a perceived bias was not a smart thing to say since you have no clue if the writer has his facts correct or not. If you could point out arbitron ratings that were close to Rush and a positive cash flow for the network and show they didn't really lose their flagship station in NY, then.. and only then.. can tou spout off that the story is junk. Otherwise you are just another guy who is just saying things trying to convince the world you are more enlightened than everyone else. Back it up!! .. is the motto from us conservatives.
Originally Posted By Eric Paddon "You didn't supply factual information, so it is impossible for me to dismiss it." The information is in the article. The burden is on you to provide your own alternate information that proves it wrong. You offered nothing but your instinctive prejudice toward a conservative source. "It's called changing the subject because you can't respond with even the simplest request for a non-biased source of information on the matter." No sir, it is not changing the subject when the analogy was used to directly show how your criticism of the subject under discussion was and is, invalid. The only changing of the subject that's been done in this thread, has been by you. The thread was started to note the trouble Air America is in by citing the latest information. That means if you wanted to stay on topic, then you would have been forced to argue why it isn't in trouble. Instead you're the one going off into a bogus tangent in which you're just demonstrating that you don't think anything that comes from a conservative outlet should ever be given any consideration. And that is bad methodology. "Um, gee, maybe because it was written by someone with a clear bias" He provides *facts* to present his argument, unlike you who lets your instinctive prejudice against conservatives be your sole guide with no comment on the specifics. Comment on the specifics, or you haven't a leg to stand on. Appealing to your belief that anything written by a conservative isn't to be trusted isn't going to work. As I said, when Dan Rather perpetrated a fraud we dissected the report point by point, and we didn't just hide behind the argument of "prove it with an "unbiased" source."
Originally Posted By jonvn "hey jon, why not just admit that you calling the story "junk" just because the writer had a perceived bias was not a smart thing to say since you have no clue if the writer has his facts correct or not" Because I'm not incorrect. I simply stated that because the writer has a bias, and a political agenda, it is not necessarily an accurate reporting of the facts. That is what I said. I then asked for an unbiased accounting of this information, which has resulted now in over 30 entries of discussion. Over what? My asking for a non-biased location where this information can be found. Instead of simply supplying what I asked for, the result has been a ton of obfuscation and insulting comments such as: "you are just another guy who is just saying things trying to convince the world you are more enlightened than everyone else." Which, of course, is another example of a strawman argument, in that I never said any such thing in any way. I simply asked for a source of information that did not have a poltical agenda to it. "If you could point out arbitron ratings that were close to Rush and a positive cash flow for the network" This has absolutely nothing to do with anything I've said. Nothing. When you can supply real information, there can be things to talk about. As it is, a very very simple request for some unbiased info on the matter is not able to be fufilled. I find that the most revealing.
Originally Posted By mele I'm part of the liberal elite because I have been personally been offended by the nasty things Rush says? Didn't he say that Chelsea Clinton was a dog? Yes, the "liberal" media published stories about Bush's daughters and how they went into a few bars. I don't think they should have said a word cos it wasn't news but reporting the true activities of the Bush twins (who were underage yet still adults) is a lot different than making fun of a 12 year old girl for not being gorgeous. That says everything I have to know about Rush. He's a jerk. If that makes you feel like I am an elitist then I don't know what to say. I call it a moral judgment. I find him repugnant. Maybe you should examine your own elitist views as you continually make morality judgments about others. Conservative elitist!
Originally Posted By PlainoLJoe the simple fact is this. Whether the story is true or not, it becomes invalid simply because of the reputation of the author.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy Hey Eric, I totally agree with you about Rush. He will always get credit for taking the Main Stream Media down. ( The drive by media ) He is the pioneer, a national treasure. I really like Medved, Hugh Hewitt, and Dennis Prager also. All three of these guys are flat out brilliant. Oh, these guys are not flat lining in the Arbitron book like Air America radio is. These guys also MAKE money from paying advertisers instead of having to get money from liberals like Soros to stay on the air.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy Hey Eric, I totally agree with you about Rush. He will always get credit for taking the Main Stream Media down. ( The drive by media ) He is the pioneer, a national treasure. I really like Medved, Hugh Hewitt, and Dennis Prager also. All three of these guys are flat out brilliant. Oh, these guys are not flat lining in the Arbitron book like Air America radio is. These guys also MAKE money from paying advertisers instead of having to get money from liberals like Soros to stay on the air.
Originally Posted By jonvn "The information is in the article. " You mean the clearly biased article written by someone with an agenda? Right. You don't seem to get it. You need to supply information from a source that is not biased or is written by someone with an agenda. Otherwise, the information is not reliable. Therefore, you have not supplied any valid information. Since you have not supplied any valid information, I can not have dismissed it. "The only changing of the subject that's been done in this thread, has been by you. The thread was started to note the trouble Air America is in by citing the latest information. " You don't have the "latest information." You have an article written by an individual who is not impartial on the subject. Here's an analogy for you: Ask Bin Laden if he thinks Al Queda does good things. He'll probably say yes. But you see, he's not an unbiased source of information on the matter. That is an extreme example of exactly what you are trying to foist on us here. "He provides *facts* to present his argument" Provide some independent and unbiased facts. Can't? "Appealing to your belief that anything written by a conservative isn't to be trusted isn't going to work." Again, another strawman argument. I never said any such thing. So this statement on your behalf is more falsehood. I said that an article written about something by someone who is clearly biased and has an agenda is not necessarily a correct reporting of the facts of the matter. I never said "conservative" or any other such words you are now trying to stuff into my mouth. Nice try, though.
