From: tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Tom Peregrin is a nit wit.
Date: 22 Jan 93 22:02:43 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: A.I. Chem Lab, University of Arizona

In article <1993Jan22.173325.345@wdl.loral.com> eric@wdl35.wdl.loral.com (Eric Kuhnen) writes:
>krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:

>I must agree with Ted on this one.  I get the impression from Tom's posts
>and conversations with me and others that he goes for the quick and easy
>ridicule/humor instead of writing anything of real substance. 

Yes,  I do that about 50% of the time.   The other 50% of the time I
post fairly thoughtful things.  For example, today I posted comparing two
women with problems, and their respective solutions (Catholic mass
and an abortion clinic).   Would you call that quick and easy?  Would
you call my debates with Doug Page quick and easy?  I would also 
reject the thesis that my going to the library and looking
up Ted Krueger's refrences for him is "quick and easy".   (Ted and I have
finally established in e-mail that he didn't actually take the quote from 
the primary source, but that he actually took it from a secondary source.
Thus the problem may well lie in Ted's facile acceptance of other peoples
assertions without critical evaluation.)

Now Ted is very upset because I really nailed him on this point, and
then used it to question to validity of any of his arguements.  He has 
gotten upset enough that he (and now you too) have gone from debating 
the points andtrying to prove that I am wrong, to mere name calling and 
mudslinging.   While flying mud may impress the pigs,  it doesn't impress me.

But, as I said above,  the other 50% of the time I do go for the quick and 
easy low blow.  Why?   To exemplify the point that such things _are_  low
blows.   I generally wait until somebody does it to one of Rush's
favorite targets...   "feminazi's", "homosexuals", Clinton, etc...  
Then I return the favor to them  until they are driven to distraction,
and start protesting how unfair this is.   Then, in e-mail, I point out that
I am mearly following the Rush Limbaugh EIB technique of character
assasination, and suggest that if they don't like it when done unto them, 
that they should not like it when they do it unto others (or Rush does it).


Now, from what you say, I apparently must have done something similar to
you.  I'm sorry that I don't remember you tho'...   I do remember
the people who actually lasted more than a few rounds, or put up
an intelligent fight.  Doug Page, for example... I hate his politics,
but he is at least capable of intelligent and coherant thought, so he wins
y respect.

>Normally, I would keep my own counsel instead of asking others to not talk
>with Tom.  However, it is a bit unnerving to have Tom's particular brand of
>static cluttering up the reception, so to speak.

I owe it all to Uncle Rush...  if you don't like my particular brand
of static, then why are you so fond of Rush????   Be honest.   If you
ignore the political leanings, you will see the techniques I am
employing are exactly the same as those he uses, with the one exception
that I can't screen posts like he screens calls.

That is actually my biggest goal on this channel.   I don't think
I will ever change the political opinions of somebody...  but if I can get 
them to critically examine the techniques of illogic and rhetoric that
Rush (ab)uses, and to eschew them, then I will be a happy person.

Tom