Pay Back Time (tw will like this...)

[Hippikos]

Originally Posted by wolf

You haven't actually read any of her books, have you?

I have read several articles from her which leads me to decide not to spend any of my money on her books.

[Hippikos]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Repeated plagiarization? Really? Name at least two actual incidences, demonstrable by accurate quotation from primary, not secondary or tertiary sources. Coulter's foes can seldom cope with Coulter, AFAIK.

Having actually read a few of her books, I'm not persuaded that even those who go, "Oh she's not a good historian" have a leg to stand on. They do not, you see, get around to explaining just how she's so poor at it. Meanwhile, Coulter continues to footnote her paragraphs to primary sources, making a specialty of damning her targets with their own words.

Birthdate? Voter registration???? Are these here or there on any matter of consequence? Or are they mere excuses, intended to prop a very silly set of fools from the collapse they should rightfully undergo that the way may be clear of the obstacles they present? Fah -- away with the lot of these.

Editor & Publisher wrote a story about Coulter's copy culture, using a program iThenticate and found several textbook plagiarisms in her latest screech "Godless" and that she's passing off, as her own writing, the works of people at the L.A. Times, the Heritage Foundation and even Planned Parenthood, without giving any of them even a footnote's worth of credit.

Apparently Coulter rips off other people's writing in a chapter entitled "The Holiest Sacrament, Abortion" where there's a 25-word passage straight out of literature from Planned Parenthood. It had been taken actually word for word, concerns the president of the Mississippi Baptist Convention, but there is no reference given. In another chapter, entitled "The Creation Myth," Coulter copied another passage, 24 words, that is neither hers nor credited, in a passage about the galactic ruler Xenu. Coulter steals that from the San Francisco Chronicle.

The longest stolen passage on page five of Coulter's book, 33 words long, from a 1999 article in the Portland Press. And in Coulter's UP columns for the past 12 months, the iThenticate program found her ripping from an L.A. Times article and the Heritage Foundation.

In a colum from Aug.05 she "borrowed" six different parts of an LA Times article.

You, as a gradute, should know this is a typical flunk a 1a English student would do and that's what iThenticate is developped for.

I would imagine a hack with anorexia nervosa, fiddling with her birthday and voter registration is hardly a person a graduate would refer to?

BTW I found Coulter's “I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much” psychopathic screeching comments especially repulsive.

[Undertoad]

Coulter exists now only as a media animal. She is a professional shit-stirrer. She can be counted on to say controversial things in each one of her appearances, so shows bring her on intentionally, to create controversy and build ratings. Viewers are drawn to the drama of the fight, for various reasons. Pundits go on these shows for free, so the price of bringing her on is that she plugs whatever book she is plugging at the time.

The books are designed to make her a living as long as she is getting the media appearances. She comes on, provokes a fight, and plugs her most recent book. They are also an awesome foil in that when people complain about her viewpoint she can always rely on "Well you didn't read my book," which would be a reasonable approach if her books weren't part of the game and not attempting to actually move the discourse and everyone on the show knows it.

She knows that she is brought on specifically to stir shit, and will say increasingly provocative things, until she's called on them; at which time she can bring loud outrage and the circle goes on.

[xoxoxoBruce]

See that, she's to living tribute to the entrepreneurial spirit of America. Money for nothing of value.

[Hippikos]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

See that, she's to living tribute to the entrepreneurial spirit of America. Money for nothing of value.

Rest my case, Your Honor.

[fargon]

"If the people really knew what went on in Washington , they would burn the place to the ground" Clive Cussler in his book Dragon

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Some case, though: 25 plus 24 plus 33 comes to a grand total of 81 words that should have been in quotes -- and some indeterminacies handwaved at. That, sir, is what you've got.

I think I'll still take Coulter over her detractors, though... she did make the cover of Time magazine on her own merits. Her books have me interested in reading her column. As with any columnist, set your BS filters to the proper polarization, and see if you find any value in the column that week.

[Ibby]

No, Coulter is just a media whore, being as extreme and sensationalist as she can, at the expense of others (everyone who istn't HER, really), just to make a quick buck.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

There are people who will seek absolutely any excuse, no matter how flimsy -- to prevent their own personal growth and any increase in understanding.

None of these people are me.

[yesman065]

Nobody is perfect and I think a lot of what she says makes sense. Is there some BS or bias there - absolutely, but its a lot less than the media majority.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

I think I'll still take Coulter over her detractors, though... she did make the cover of Time magazine on her own merits.

So did I, just this past month.

Originally Posted by yesman065

Nobody is perfect and I think a lot of what she says makes sense. Is there some BS or bias there - absolutely, but its a lot less than the media majority.

Wow... just... wow.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Now go ahead, somebody, and tell me if she's making any errors of fact in this column at all.

Your arguments are going to have to be better than hers, be advised, and they'll have to be provable.

Ann Coulter's latest column. It supports what I said about Democrats behaving stupidly or treasonably.

[Undertoad]

Almost 100% of that turd of a column is unsupportable invective, to the point where it's hard to find provable facts in it to bicker with. She connects the unconnectable, simplifies the unsimplifiable. She paints with the broadest possible brush. I could deliver a smackdown, but it's hard, because every time I try to quote even half a paragraph I find it loaded with this kind of invective, and it's a real drag to try to paw through it to find whatever reality she is pressing for.

I took two courses in Logic in college, (Philosophy 201, Mathematics 204); including a whole section on logical fallacies; and this column should be taught as a part of that course. It is MAJORITY logical fallacies.

Nevertheless, here are a few bones for you to ponder.

- In 1967, Nixon ran on an unstated "secret" plan to end the war quickly, but failed to do so and then failed to really move the conflict towards victory.
- Nixon's removal of ground troops could plausibly be called "cut and run", and surely would be if he was a Democrat and Coulter was evaluating the decision.
- It wasn't the lack of monetary support that doomed the South.
- The North Vietnamese did not attack the South because the Democrats won. The Democrats they were familiar with kicked their royal ass.
- The Democrats did not "invent" Watergate.
- The facts surrounding Watergate appalled a vast majority of Americans, so greatly that in the next election they would put in whatever D was available, especially if he was considered impeccably honest, and a Governor who had never been to Washington with the hope that maybe things would be better with an "outsider".
- In order for a Democracy to win a war, the war has to have public support.
- In general, a "my side is always right while the other is always wrong" approach leads to intellectual dishonesty and a highly irrational view of events.
- Vietnam and Iraq have similarities and differences. The smarter righty pundits point out the differences.

[Undertoad]

My favorite James Lileks quote applies whenever somebody gets too invective-laden.

It’s almost as if you have two options:

1. I disagree with my opponent's position on taxation, and therefore I shall oppose it.

2. I disagree with my opponent's position on taxation, and therefore I believe he has sex with goats.

The second option is ever so satisfying to the lone iconoclast: the fact that the mainstream media does not report the rumors about midnight goat-deliveries confirms your worldview. And the faintest whiff of goatiness whets your enthusiasm, confirms your juicy suspicions.

But of course the sheeple won’t believe it - which just proves how smart you are.