From: Valuemetaphysics@aol.com
Date: Sun Jul 11 2004 - 02:43:07 BST
In a message dated 7/10/04 10:32:00 PM GMT Daylight Time,
daneglover@hotmail.com writes:
> Hello everyone
>
> >From: Valuemetaphysics@aol.com
> >Reply-To: moq_discuss@moq.org
> >To: moq_discuss@moq.org
> >Subject: MD Rush Limbaugh and Intellectual Quality.
> >Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2004 10:45:13 EDT
> >
> >On 10 Jul 2004 at 2:02, Dan Glover wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Arlo
> > >
> > > Rather than complaining that others aren't reading your posts,
> > > perhaps you should spend a little more time digesting the posts
> > > yourself.
> >
> >Dear Dan,
> >Please contemplate the following assertion:
> >"Rush Limbaugh displays higher intellectual Quality than Noam Chomsky."
>
> Hi Mark
>
> I've never heard Rush Limbaugh speak nor have I read his work. It's not that
>
> I believe it has no merit but rather I just don't have time to read
> everything. Media-wise, I don't own a tv and I only listen to Cubs games and
>
> alternative rock on the radio. I dislike talk shows intensely, almost as
> much as Internet chat rooms.
>
> Noam Chomsky on the other hand I'm quite familiar with though I tend to
> gravitate more towards his linguistic work rather than his polictical.
>
> >
> >1. Would you agree that any individual holding this view is arguably not
> >evincing an adequate appreciation of what the MOQ would suggest
> >intellectual
> >Quality to be?
>
> I don't think I'm qualified to answer due to my unfamiliarity with Limbaugh.
>
> >
> >2. If one adds to the above assertion a further assertion claiming the
> >works
> >of Noam Chomsky to be unworthy of intellectual investigation, would you
> >agree
> >that it is arguably fair to complain that some time should have been spent
> >reading Chomsky before making the first assertion, it being understood that
>
> >no
> >works had been at all read?
>
> See my answer to #1.
>
> >
> >3. Further to 1 and 2, is it not unreasonable to suggest that the
> >individual
> >in question has adopted, and is currently employing an open strategy of
> >avoiding challenging material, and is thus exhibiting a disregard for
> >intellectual
> >Quality while perversely claiming to uphold intellectual Quality?
>
> See my answer to #1.
>
> Thank you for your comments,
>
> Dan
>
How very convenient.
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Jul 11 2004 - 06:31:03 BST