When Did Rush Limbaugh Become Defensive (and in so doing become boring)?

2/10/04

[Keith in Iowa]

That works...

[Bluntpoint]

Moby, with that bulbous head, is the Glans Penis of the rock world.

[zook]

I heard the shows. You're mincing words. My impression, listening to Rush nearly every day, is that he's lost some of his sense of humor. Your mileage may vary. But I've listened to him since 1989, and that's my opinion.

[_Jim]

Your mileage may vary.

What do you use as a reference as a 'calibrating standard', if any, to compare him with today against yesterday?

PURE, but fading, memory?

Poor standard, at best ...

[zook]

Look, don't be a jerk about this. I'm not the only one who has noted a change in Rush. This is a very subjective question. But I'll match my memory (and my judgment) against anyone's.

[_Jim]

Look, don't be a jerk about this. I'm not the only one who has noted a change in Rush.

LOOK who is making 'charges' based on 15 year old 'memories' (NOT even considering any changes *you* may have undergone DURING that period of time)!

Get real, man!

At least I've got tapes going back 13 years by which I can do some comparisons to back up *my* contentions!

[zook]

Now we know who we're dealing with--a dogmatic junior audio scientist wannabe. At least half a dozen people, maybe more have expressed an *opinion* about a change in Rush. Oh, but you've got the tapes that prove we're all wrong. Know anything about rater reliability? It means that your freakin' tapes don't necessarily make your perceptions better than ours. And given the rigid attitude you've shown here, I'll bet you could listen to those tapes for 20 years and never detect any changes at all!

So don't mess with me, man. I've about had it up to here (hand level with forehead) with nimrods like you who think they're right about everything and want everybody else to know it.

[_Jim]

Now we know who we're dealing with--a dogmatic junior audio scientist wannabe.

An objective logician in search of the truth and willing to go to lenghts to get there.

So don't mess with me, man. I've about had it up to here (hand level with forehead) with nimrods like you who think ...

Not impressed in the least. Between fading/faded memories, some 'jading' due to exposure to 'a realm beyond Rush' - I don't think you can be objective.

Pure and simple.

[arasina]

I'd have to say it's just you, pab. If you don't like listening to Rush, turn the channel on your radio. Why post about your personal opinion that he is boring? Trying to get some nice negativity stirred up so people can find anti-Rush posts when they do a Google search? Trying to bring down Rush Limbaugh, pabby?

Why don't you tell us what you had for dinner and how it bothers your digestive system? That'd be as interesting as your thoughts about radio talk shows.

[ontos-on]

Rush is still great. There are always those who don't like him for various reasons and motives; when you drvie someplace during the day, he is hte best to bring along with you. Nooone compares with Rush. He is never really boring, because it is interesting to hear his perspective on a host of issues. He is drawing a lot of what he calls "seminar callers" or as I call them democrat lawyers with time on their hands, for what are virtually faux phone calls. No one can beat Rush.

[Sloth]

I still find him entertaining, but I think he may be stressed by the balancing act between practical partisanship (support for Bush) and ideological principle (opposition to Bush domestic policies) -- just like many of us on FR. He knows now is not the time to pile on the President, but he can't just ignore the administration's leftward lurches, either.

[zook]

At least 15 different posters have noted a change. A rational and objective person would ask, "I wonder, is there some truth to what they say?" If he "had 11 years of tapes" (and I doubt this, perhaps you have some kind of sample of tapes over those years), he might devise some kind of study using a panel of listeners and some set of specific criteria in order to try to answer the question.

But not you. You don't do any of this. You simply claim to "know." Did you listen to all your tapes since this thread started? I doubt it. So, you're really going on the basis of memory also. You're no more objective than I or anyone else here. In fact, I'd say you're less objective because you appear to "luuuuuv" Rush.

Pure and simple.

[_Jim]

At least 15 different posters have noted a change.

Selective 'citing' of what little 'evidence' there is (what is it actually, 5:1 against your contentions?) that supports *your* contention.

HARDLY convincing -

- PURE and simple.

PS I've got the goods on you in this case; the 'tapes' speak for themselves, it is an EASY matter to compare yesterday to today; face it, you have no case here.

WHAT has been my trademark here: "LET the evidence speak for itself."

I could post some of 'yesteryears' Rush here and let those present, those that wish to, make the call, but, I'll let you 'walk away' from this in one piece.

[zook]

I'm not walking away; I'm calling you a nut case! I'm sure you also have a hand-made perpetual motion machine on the shelf next to all them tapes of yours!

You didn't respond to anything I said in the last post. You can't respond to the charge that (1) at best, you might have a sampling of Rush tapes from the past years and (2) that your memory of what is on those tapes is no more reliable than someone else's memory of what they've heard.

You can keep repeating your mantra all you like, but in fact you just sound like a dufus from a Monty Python sketch.