What I was saying is that your whole post is fantasy with a few bits derived from reality. It's kind of hard to tell a man who's tilting at windmills and is yet so convinced that what he sees is reality that he's lashing out at thin air and inanimate objects.
Well then, since you are much better connected to reality than I am (by your own assertion above), surely you can utterly demolish my original post by pointing out where it makes false statements, or incorrect analyses, offering instead your own far more acccurate and insightful statements and analyses?
And Rush Limbaugh? An ascribed idiot with a serious disconnect from reality problem. A believable source and authority whose word can be respected? No.
... and utterly irrelevant to my post, even if everything you said about him was completely true. I said nothing about Rush Limbaugh in my original post, and I still haven't said anything about him on this thread, save to note that one of the other posters mentioned him.
But, if you believe the gospel according to Rush, there probably isn't much I can say to convince you otherwise.
Why do you believe that I "believe the gospel according to Rush" (whatever that means)?
Seriously, this takes argument to new levels of incompetence on your part. You are claiming that I support Rush Limbaugh and then attacking me on that basis; the term for that would be "guilt by association," save that I am "associated" with him only in your own mind!
(By the way, I'm not even going to attack or defend Rush Limbaugh here, as he's irrelevant to the discussion. I am enjoying a laugh at your expense for your inept debating technique, though -- thank you for that!).
Well then, since you are much better connected to reality than I am (by your own assertion above), surely you can utterly demolish my original post by pointing out where it makes false statements, or incorrect analyses, offering instead your own far more acccurate and insightful statements and analyses?
And Rush Limbaugh? An ascribed idiot with a serious disconnect from reality problem. A believable source and authority whose word can be respected? No.
... and utterly irrelevant to my post, even if everything you said about him was completely true. I said nothing about Rush Limbaugh in my original post, and I still haven't said anything about him on this thread, save to note that one of the other posters mentioned him.
But, if you believe the gospel according to Rush, there probably isn't much I can say to convince you otherwise.
Why do you believe that I "believe the gospel according to Rush" (whatever that means)?
Seriously, this takes argument to new levels of incompetence on your part. You are claiming that I support Rush Limbaugh and then attacking me on that basis; the term for that would be "guilt by association," save that I am "associated" with him only in your own mind!
(By the way, I'm not even going to attack or defend Rush Limbaugh here, as he's irrelevant to the discussion. I am enjoying a laugh at your expense for your inept debating technique, though -- thank you for that!).
Reply
Leave a comment