On Tue, 07 Oct 2003 01:44:23 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:

They're both just a flash in the pan. People are interested in them right
now in the same way you gawk at a really bad car accident.

Really? Was Franken's "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot: And Other
Observations" a flash in the pan, as well? If that's true, then why is it at
198 on Amazon's sales rank--four years after its publication?

Is "Lies" at #4 in Amazon's ranking because people are "gawking" at it?

And his other work, "Oh, The Things I Know! A Guide to Success, Or, Failing
That, Happiness," published in March of this year, is around 4,200.

This is not about whether you agree with Franken, of course; I'm simply showing
how certain unverified assertions can dismantle an argument, if one is not
careful.

For what it's worth, I find more people who self-identify as "liberal" reading
conservative commentators and authors than I do "conservatives" reading liberal
texts. In general, those who tend to read the likes of Rush Limbaugh (and
recently, his tag-along kid brother, David), O'Reilly, Coulter and the like,
seem to restrict their reading and listening to those who will reinforce and
confirm the beliefs they already hold.

Last month, for example, someone made a comment about Al Franken's earlier
effort, "Rush Limbaugh...." He said, "The title is not supported with any known
facts." In saying that, he demonstrated that, if he had read that particular
book, he did not do so carefully, or critically. As it turns out, both of
Franken's overtly political books are quite well researched and documented.
This doesn't mean they are "good," or even useful--but any arguer will find
himself at a disadvantage by making assertions that can be so easily disproved.

I'm going to go think about my boats for a while.

Joe Parsons



BTW--who is #1 on the list? grin