[at-l] RE: Limbaugh

[Trailmixup@aol.com (Trailmixup@aol.com)]

WARNING -- 
DELETE NOW IF YOUR TOLERANCE FOR THIS TOPIC IS LOW
(I would have replied off-list, but that would have missed the opportunity to publicly challenge the notion that it ever belonged *on-list!*] 

>>Gather your emotional views, your disgust, and your statistics, if you have any, regarding gun control and income tax burdens and we can take it off list.  You're right; this list doesn't need a detailed political discussion,so to each according to his needs.....or something like that.>>


Gracious.  Such a short paragraph, and yet so much *wrong* with it....

You seem to be responding to two different posts (ie, mine --concerning disgust at blatant mistatements and my allusion to the post not being Trail-related [inspite of your cute little tag that "made" it thus] and another's -- suggesting that discussion of the topic be disconintued on at-l).

You suggest that we should "gather our statistics as they relate to gun control and tax burden" and, then take it "off the list."  I presume your point is that the original post WAS Trail related and therefore belonged on the list?  

Hmmm.  I see several problems with this:

It wasn't Trail related.  I saw no statements concerning gun control or tax burdens "as they relate to the Trail."  A discussion of those specific issues would have been appropriate and, likely very, interesting.

You cited no statistics.  You DID provide "emotional views" and made sweeping, insulting, and flashy (Look up the meaning of "flamboyant") generalizations.  You presented both of these as though they were *factual* as opposed to your own personal opinion.  Your statement above suggests that the posts in response to yours were merely "emotional views."  And what was *your* post?!

You ended with a flourishing (again -- look up the meaning of "flamboyant"), oblique, and for that matter - out of context reference to Marxist philosophy (really, now?!  And *you* protest flamboyancy?) You suggest, with a note of sarcasm (at least I *think* it was sarcasm), that what this list "doesn't need is a detailed political discussion...."  

I sincerely think you are wrong about that.  
What we WOULD have benefited from was a detailed political discussion OF A TRAIL RELATED ISSUE! Instead, what you GAVE (after a thought-provoking first paragraph) was an emotionally charged, flamboyant, unsupported, and insulting *personal view* presented as fact. Then you followed it with veiled chastisement of those who posted in response.  

Take up your own challenge!  Bring up a Trail-related issue to discuss.  CITE some statistics.  GIVE some factual statements.  Bring up a topic that is not only one that is "tangentially-maybe-if-we-take-it-to-
the-*extreeeeme*-we-can-glean-some-relationship-to-
the-Trail" and you'll have contributed meaningfully to the list.  

Entreating list members to do what you failed to do (make the posts Trail-related and fact-based) is as reprehensible to me as your intial [flamboyant] post that stated that it is the very "flamboyancy" of Rush that makes you object to him in the first place!

Make it Trail-related and it would be great to discuss on this list.  A general political discussion with you (on-list or off-) is of no interest to me.

Ready