From: sieferme@stein.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Subject: Re: A Technical Request
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 16:57:24 GMT

On Mon, 12 Oct 1992, Karin Brennan wrote:
>  I happen to feel that "for the money" is an ok reason to have a talk
> show, and Rush's conservative beliefs are a good enough subject to talk
> about as any.

Money is ok with me too.

> Whether or not you believe what he says is
> inconsequential.  I think that he believes it.  So his "baiting" is
> justifyied.

Well, my beliefs are not inconsequential to me. :)

As to what he "really" believes, I have two main doubts.  First,
a local sports broadcaster who used to work with Rush has said 
that his beliefs are highly elastic, depending upon the needs
of his ambition.  But mainly, his misrepresenting of facts and
his preference for invective over discussion indicate to me
that he is mainly interested in his own enrichment more than
conservative philosophy.  

> If I am reading the above quote correctly,  it is logical for me to
> question whether money making, as a motive, is something to be scorned,
> as it is becoming increasingly trendy in our day.

Historically, I disagree.  Performing an action mainly for
"money" was popularly scorned in the 60's, but in the 80's
exhibiting massive personal greed was no longer such
a social faux pas; indeed, it was very highly regarded.
What the 90's have in store, who knows?

> Ayn Rand had a hell of
> alot to say about this subject, and the effects this type of thinking
> can have on our society. This is why I mentioned her and her novel
> "Atlas Shrugged." As to whether or not She would want to be associated
> Rush Limbaugh or not, I don't know.  Maybe she'd think he was a pig.  Is
> that what you want me to say?
> It doesn't matter to me.

True, this is just speculation without possibility of resolution.
  
> And, about this b.board... 
> 
> I disagree with Rush on certain points, but when people start calling
> him things like "Lameboy," and "buffoon", it sounds like a last ditch
> effort from someone about to lose an arguement.  Images of the little
> boy on the playground with his finger to his nose going "nana-na-nana" 
> come rushing back.  This brings a juvenile feel, and attitude to this
> b.board. It happens on BOTH sides and is not enlightening to anyone.  
> When people  resort to name calling  it's all anyone ever remembers
> afterward.  

The only time I send any messages to alt.rush.limbaugh is when
it is cross-posted to alt.fan.dan-quayle, a group which exists
solely to ridicule our inestimable VP.  This might help explain the
tone of the posts.

I would prefer not to get involved with the .rush group, 
but most of the messages from that group to a.f.d-q contain
such phrases as "liberal wimps" and "socialists assholes" directed
to us, so I feel obliged (sometimes) to respond.  This tone
is not surpirsing, since it is hard to take someone seriously
who sprinkles his radio/tv shows with such imprecise and
inflamatory terms as "feminazi".  This is why I regard
Rush as an entertainer (i.e., buffoon) and not a serious
thinker or commentator.

I occasionally post more serious messages to other groups,
but alt.fan.dan-quayle is reserved for the type of discussions
found at a local pub, without the beer.  

> Respectfully,
> Karin

Happy Election,
Eric.



-- 
| Eric Sieferman            |    sieferme@u.washington.edu          |
| U. of W., M.C.I.S.        |    (206) 685-3104                     |