[at-l] RE: Limbaugh

[app-trail@excite.com (Tim Rich)]

Greetings,

I'll be brief, again, so Ready will be able to read more into it.  1) I
responded only to your post, trailmixedup.  2) I've made no statement that
any original posting on the "WF is like Rush" thread belonged, or didn't, on
the list.  3) I never said a general discussion of conservative/liberal
views belonged on the list, including my previous posting, hence the offer
to take it off-list if you desired. 4) I've never encouraged anyone to make
their comments trail-related (except Felix, of course) 5) My "cute little
tag" was just that - an attempt to keep comments light-hearted - it's been a
running gag on this list for years when a clearly off-topic post is
presented.  6) Regarding my reference to Karl's creed - "To each accordig to
their needs, from each according to their ability" - it truly seemed like a
good fit for you.  7) Statistics - I'll not clutter the list with a detailed
defense of this topic on list - if you want it (you say you don't), it'll be
off list.  
 
Take Care,

Tim

On Fri, 30 Mar 2001 19:45:46 EST, Trailmixup@aol.com wrote:

>  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





_______________________________________________________
Send a cool gift with your E-Card
http://www.bluemountain.com/giftcenter/