Talk:Essay:Conservapedias Law/1

General comments

I didn't realize that slinging mud at other people was a valid method to defend what a person says. No matter what, someone can mention that Hitler killed millions during the Holocaust, so it shouldn't matter that Ann Coulter is a bigoted transvestite.

Coulter is crazy. Her crazyness has many aspects, one of which is a desperate seeking of attention. Another is a tendency to think of absolutly everything as a religion. Liberalism? Religion. Evolution? Religion. Another is consistantly demonising those she dislikes: Homosexuals become violent pedophile abusers, liberals become christian-hating communists, and so on. - Suricou, rambling.

[1] The truth about Ann Coulter.

Attempting to defend Coulter's statements just exposes the incredible bias and partisanship of this site. She made a ragingly stupid, offensive and derogatory statement. There is not doubt about what she said or what it means.

I don't believe that footnote is all that necessary. Do you seriously think that anyone who's ever spoken English _doesn't_ know what a f****t is? --Sandbagger 15:16, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes, it is important, for precisely the reason articulated below by Aschlafly. Coulter says the word "has nothing to do with gays." Dpbsmith 16:03, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Faggot means a bundle of sticks. I do not understand the liberal media's obsession with casting her as a bigot. She was merely pointing out an etymological anomaly. At worst, it was misinterpreted by people who were looking for something to complain about. --Deuteronomy 11:44, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

I'm going to look for a real definition that captures its widespread use in the 1970s as a wimp or wuss. In slang in the 1970s it did not typically mean homosexual. The etymology of the word has nothing to do with homosexuality, as it comes from British prep schools a century ago.--Aschlafly 15:19, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree that it comes from British prep schools a century ago, the three-letter version anyway. More than a century ago, actually, as it appears throughout Tom Brown's Schooldays, published in 1857 and probably is derived from Hughes' experiences decades before. But I can only suppose that you have been deceived by the euphemistic way in which British prep schools have been described in literature. Dpbsmith 16:06, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

The three-letter version is defined by Wentworth and Flexner (1967) Dictionary of American Slang, Supplemented Edition, Crowell:

n. 1. A cigarette c1915 .... 2 A homosexual; an effeminate man.... Although [it use for cigarettes] may have reinforced the use of the word, [three-letter version], a boy servant or lackey has been common Eng. schoolboy use since before 1830, and may be the origin....

There is probably no way to be certain of the range of services traditionally provided by "boy servants or lackeys" in British prep schools. Even Orwell's "Such, Such Were the Joys" is very elliptical on this point. In "Such, Such Were the Joys" Orwell says "At some preparatory schools homosexuality is not a problem," but is frank about its existence at St. Cyprians. He gives few details, saying that at that time he was in "an almost sexless state" and he does not use the word we're discussing. Dpbsmith 16:10, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Aschlafly, If your source for "This explanation is consistent with the use of the term in American and British schools in the 20th century" is your own experience, all I can say is, not at the American school I attended in the 20th century. Dpbsmith 16:24, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

I don't know. But the term was never meant to apply exclusively, or even primarily, as a slur against gays. Mayor Sharpe's use demonstrates that. It's more plausible that homosexuals adopted the term "faggot" just as they adopted the term "gay". A famous Alfred Hitchcock movie (1940s?) has a line where the actor describes San Francisco as "gay". That was not a slur, and the adoption of the term by the homosexual movement does not mean that everyone else must immediately abandon its traditional meaning.--Aschlafly 16:25, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Even the etymology cited in the article does not support Ann Coulter's stated definition of 'wuss'. The term has never meant anything like 'wuss'. The definition connected with schools cited in the article says: It also may have roots in Brit. public school slang fag "a junior who does certain duties for a senior" (1785), with suggestions of "catamite," from fag (v.). This was also used as a verb. Britinme 10.50 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Now is not the 1970s, and its meaning is pretty well set at this point. --Sandbagger 15:42, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Etymology of the term, for anyone who's interested. Tsumetai 15:44, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for the citation, which I've concluded. Does Sandbagger think the meaning of the word "niggardly" has now changed also? I've added that incident to this entry.--Aschlafly 16:04, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

I don't think the parallel is good. The meaning of "niggardly" is well-defined. The dictionary does not suggest that it is racial slur, or hint that it should be avoided because of its similarly in sound to a racial slur. The person who used it was almost certainly using it in good faith with its dictionary meaning (there's a possibility he was deliberately using it because it was similar in sound to a racial slur but I discount it). Those who objected to it were fools.

In the case of Ann Coulter's use of the word she used, the situation is not parallel. It is much hazier. Unlike "niggardly," the standard dictionary definition of the word is a reference to homosexuality. (I don't think anyone would argue that she was talking about a bundle of twigs). Coulter may have been going by the meaning of the word as she learned it at school. She very likely never looked it up in a dictionary. Her recollection of what the word meant in her school may be accurate—or may have reflected innocence on her part at the time. And in the intervening years she may never have heard the word used to mean "homosexual."

Yes, you could say she has "plausible deniability," but it seems a stretch to me. Dpbsmith 16:40, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

But Edwards isn't gay. So what do you think Coulter meant by the term, if not the ordinary schoolhouse usage? Do you think it is racist for one African American to use the "N" word to refer to another African American? I really don't see how there can be a gay slur against someone who isn't gay.

Although Edwards is not gay, he is known for taking a lot of care with his personal appearance, particularly his hair. This trait is thought by some people to imply effeminacy. I think Coulter was using the word faggot to make that implication and associate Edwards with that trait in the minds of some people. Essentially, she was making a joke, but her claim of schoolhouse usage is thoroughly disingenuous. Britinme 11.17 25 March 2007 (EDT)

By the way, dictionaries are biased just like anything else. "Common Era" is in the dictionary now also, but we expressly reject the dictionary about that. Conservatives resist liberal attempts to change meanings of words to suit the liberal agenda.--Aschlafly 16:47, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

I don't think the "niggardly" incident really has any place in this article, especially if the goal is to limit gossip. In my opinion, all that really needs to be said on the "faggot" comment is that Coulter said it, some people got upset, she apologized for it. End of story. ColinR 03:27, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I removed the claim that no leading conservative group distanced themselves from their statements, because I remember reading a press release from the website of the Christian Defense Alliance doing just that. I consider this group notable because their pro-life activism has been noted on a national stage (particularly their attempts to get Rick Warren to distance themselves from Barack Obama.) MountainDew 02:29, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I thought that Conservapedia was going to stay away from this sort of trivia and gossip. Who cares about the Edwards remark? Why is it of any significance? Possibly some people were offended, but those same people are probably more offended by 100 other things that Coulter has said. I say that the whole section should be removed. RSchlafly 02:44, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

No, these statements-- and the despicable, violent left-wing overreaction-- make her who she is. It's definitive, so it should stay (but be streamlined). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MikeM (talk)

It's not just gossip, in my opinion, because this is a major news story that has been covered by the news. I know it's not as significant, but it's like saying that the whole Monica Lewinsky thing was just gossip. I don't want this to dominate the article, but I don't want people thinking we approve of it, because I agree with the Christian Defense Alliance and many other conservatives that Ms. Coulter makes us look bad as conservatives.

This is just my personal opinion, though. MountainDew 02:46, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

There is no need to either approve or disapprove. Maybe you could say that she occasionally makes inflammatory remarks. Beyond that, I see no value to showing some opinions on this particular remark. RSchlafly 03:21, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Wow, I just realized how redundant I was. "News story that was covered by the news"? I'm tired. MountainDew 03:22, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

"This explanation is consistent with the use of the term in American and British schools in the 20th century, and is supported by its etymology as a term applying to someone who does duties for others more senior.[6] Edwards, whose public service consists of merely one term in the U.S. Senate, fits that meaning."

This last unsourced sentence, effectively makes conservapedia AGREE with Edwards being a "faggot". Why not add "in Ann Coulter's opinion" to that? I came to this site with high expectations and here we have the site agreeing with childish name-calling as if it is a known, verifiable fact! deronde 16:05, 14 March 2007 (CDT)

Why is this page blocked? Doesn't it deserve the contributions of internet users like other articles, or have we decided that an article on Coulter falls below the standard for democratic exertion?--Fpresjh 21:26, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

It's pretty sad when a hate monger like Coulter is lionized on a site that is reputedly organized around Christian values and her blatent hate speech is ( apparently seriously ) treated to a convulated etymology that priveledges definitions far removed in place and time over the one that she so obivously meant. Isn't there some sin in this? It just goes to show the hypocracy and fascism that this project embodies. Isn't lying a sin? Isn't corrupt use of power a sin? Oh, I forgot the intelligent design debate. Obviously some 'christians' think lying is ok when it serves a grander purpose like, say confirming their bias or damaging those they perceive as enemies for instance. Have you no shame? The lord's work indeed. Godman 15:44, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Godman, Why do you feel the necessity to engage in name calling? Isn't using vicious invective hate speech? What about impugning motives without cause? Doesn't throwing around the term "fascism" recklessly denigrate the meaning and suffering of fascism's real victims? RobS 16:16, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

I think Coulter's actions speak for themselves. As a practicing Christian and a true conservative I feel some compulsion to point out when radical elements co-opt the label conservative and Christian for their own seemingly cynical ends. That saddens me, as it should any Christian and any patriot, and it weakens the impact of God's message and closes hearts of those whom Coulter attacks. I didn't throw out the label fascism lightly. Coulter's position and belief seem founded on its tenents. By your tacit defense of Coulter, I gather the 'god' you worship delights in hate speech and name calling as does the brand of 'conservatism' you embrace. As it is, conservapedia is an embarassment and an abomionation. The name should be changed to radicalapedia or fascipedia. Godman 18:48, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

I really hope you're joking. To suggest that we should disregard MONTHS of precedent on this site and completely warp its original focus to somehow give the impression that one must be a "radical" or "fascist" in order to share their viewpoints is probably one of the most absurd, and, coincidentally, radical and fascistic concepts I have heard in a LONG time. --Deuteronomy 11:48, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

Ann Coulter is a political entertainer. She knows this is true and the joke is on those who take her seriously. For instance, she recently made a joke that she's made more money off her comments about wishing Edwards was killed in a terrorist attack than he has made attacking her. She's laughing all the way to the bank. That said, conservapedia has a conversative, Christian bias. To lionize Coutler is to praise someone who is actually the enemy of religous conservatism. Her behavior does not represent any of the kind and noble virtues set forth in the Torah or the Christian bible. She doesn't represent intelligent, mature discussion of issues void of schoolyard antics. Her principle is to make money off controversy. Like a neo-con Rosie O'Donnell, happy to reap the rewards of a society voracious for public spectacle. I'm a democrat and more than happy to call a spade a spade, whether they be a republican or a democrat. To be taken seriously, you must be honest and live your word.

I think that the point is largely being missed here. It simply cannot be argued that Edwards comes across in a somewhat effeminate fashion, from the quality of his voice to his obsession with his hair. I think that Coulter was making a perfectly valid accusation, and that it should be taken seriously. Many homosexuals do marry in order to retain their mainstream appeal while continuing to engage in horrid "extracurricular" activities. Maybe we should seriously consider that Edwards is a "fag." Frankly, that she would back down on this sort of hardhitting genius for which we all respect her is really one of the most dissapointing occurences I can recall in her public history. ATB 11:35, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

How can a woman who is a self-proclaimed 'pot-stirrer' not have a section on controversy or criticism? I bet she would be upset if she saw that there is not a prominent list of liberal faggots that she's ticked off. User:RWest 15:58 23-7-2007

Ann's next book

Since the page is blocked, please add the following reference: Ann's book publisher, The Crown Publishing Group, has no problems with Ann and is planning an October release for her next book, "If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans." Crocoite^talk 18:42, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Done. MountainDew 02:31, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Ann Coulter is to politcal discourse what Richard Speck was to the nursing profession. Thanks to hatemongers like her, Savage, and Limbaugh, we've got a country split between Conservatives who think all Liberals are communist homosexuals who murder children for thrills, and Liberals who think all conservatives are jackbooted Neanderthals who can't wait to start another civil war. --Scrap 21:35, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

The liberals are for free speech unless it is a conservative voicing their views not using politically correct speech. The left resorts to name calling labeling conservatives "hatemongers", "homophobes", etc. I've heard the Hollywood left saying hateful speech about President Bush and the left has no problem because it's liberal politically correct. Crocoite^talk 16:59, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

I concur. Why do we put up with all these namby pamby goofs that want to keep us from the truth. Bill Clinto is gay, look at Hillary. I would be gay too if I was married to that. We should be able to say whatever we want on this site--it is for us--not them. Flippin 15:18, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

And one more thing, why don't we call things like they are? I read somewhere that the word "cowboy" was being replaced by "person of the west" in kids' textbooks. Can't we just call them cowboys and indians? And what about Manhole covers? Do we really need to say "person-hole-covers?" I have many black friends and I don't refer to them as "african-american" or whatever--I call them black. They call me white and we get along. Sometimes, jokingly, we call each other 'negro' but so waht? we're friends. If we want to call each other something unpopular, who cares? I applaud that senator from Virginia for calling the kid macaca, or whatever. it was meant to be funny. Flippin 15:22, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Category

If this article is unlocked at some point, it should probably be added to Category:Political people or Category:Biographies. --Interiot 21:37, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Well that's all a matter on how one views Coulter, isn't it? I think she's in there with Mort Sahl, Rush Limbaugh, (and dare I say it:) Al Franken: People who're commentators on the world as THEY see it NOW. Sure, the underlying messages are serious but she's using the tongue-in-cheek method to be able to explore issues that one cannot approach in a serious fashion because it would look like attacks straight off. I think her a master of the use of hyperbole that gets her opponents so riled up as to leave their common sense, (and at times common courtesy), in the trunk of the car. And she knows this and plays it like it's all been scripted out beforehand.

While I do not know the woman personally, I like her. In some ways she reminds me a bit of the Boss' mother. Strong, articulate, fast on her feet, personable with being overly deferential.

MOO --Cracker^talk 14:27, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Perhaps some more information about her credentials

I'd like to see some more information about Ann Coulter's credentials as a journalist/commentator. Many people are unaware of her years of service as a lawyer in Washington. I'd be happy to make the addition if it was unlocked.

Biographical data

Shouldn't an entry on an individual include at least a little biographical information? Born, educated, work history, family, etc. This entry is not really about Ann Coulter, it's about what she writes about. This looks like a section in a lrger entry on Coulter, not a complete entry. Why is it blocked? How can this essential encyclopedia style information be added?

It is my understanding that Ms. Coulter is unmarried, and carries on sexual relationships outside of marriage. This is very concerning to me, because this behavior is in direct violation of God's Laws. DunsScotus 14:33, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

shouldn't this information be in the article? I mean we know for a fact where she was educated, where she has worked, and what her residence is. Although on that last point there has been some dispute as her voter fraud run in with the law has shown. Would that be gossip or pertinent biographical data? The article as it stands is just pertaining to the Edwards flap and has little to do with Coulter. Why has this article been locked??

I'm not sure how this is relevant. I find Ms. Coulter's unmarried status to be troubling, because she is of marriagable age. I would like this Conservative icon to find Love and reconcile her personal life with the Precepts of the Divine. DunsScotus 18:20, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

"Total Fag"

For context on how Ann was using the word to refer to Edwards, I just think its relevant to point out Ann's appearance on Hardball last July, after saying a day before that Bill Clinton was a latent homosexual.

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about your private life. How do you know that Bill Clinton's gay? COULTER: He may not be gay, but Al Gore, total fag.

So she's clearly aware of at least some connection between toe word Fag and homosexuality. So when she says that the word "has nothing to do with Gays," she's kind of... you know, lying. --RexMundane 15:04, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

OTHER WORD GAMES: If the censors who locked the article see this, in point of fact David Howard resigned after the "N-word" incident; he was not fired. Also, the reaction was not so much from "liberals" as from Marshall Brown, an African-American colleague of his who either misheard it or misunderstood it.

Coulter -- hardly a role model for Conservatives

Coulter is a puzzle -- how did someone who, on innumerable occasions, quite enjoys insulting, attacking, and saying nasty and unkind things about people with whom she disagrees ever become a beacon for people who loudly proclaim they are Christians? Judge not, that ye be not judged -- it seems plain enough that Christ himself decries such behavior, so I am eternally puzzled as to how self-avowed Christians find her actions admirable. On purely logical grounds, her ad hominem attacks against Edwards and others are laughable (but not in the way she imagines). In any case, what we have here is not an encylopedia entry, it's a puff piece, and one locked away so that none of us who may differ with it can do anything about it. That doesn't sound to me as though it will lead to "a conservative encyclopedia you can trust"! Boethius 22:15, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I think Coulter's entire persona is a parody of the typical conservatives idea of 'jerk fodder.' At least I hope it is. If she's a real person... ... wow. Doesn't bear thinking about, really. --BillOReillyFan 22:22, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

So? The article doesn't say that Coulter is a role model. RSchlafly 22:34, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

She's trying to get attention. She wants people to read her books and columns and listen to her.

Her contention is that liberals shut down debate and monopolize the airwaves and print media with their biased POV. After she gets the audience's attention, she points out this liberal bias and gives a consevative retort.

She uses irony, mockery and sarcasm to keep the reader's attention as she makes her points.

IMHO she does this as a deliberate tactic, not because it's her nature. But my tactic vs. nature speculation is, well, just personal speculation. I wish she conducted herself with as much dignity as Diane Ravitch or Lynne Cheney. On the other hand, who but me has ever read the latter two's works? Ravitch is virtually unknown outside the academic world, and Cheney is regarded merely as the VP's wife. At least Coulter gets her points across in books that keep making the New York Times bestseller list. --Ed Poor 10:14, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Coulter tells it like it is!--bill m 12:07, 29 March 2007 (EDT) 12:45, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Yeah, and all those times where she's been roven to be wrong just shows you how biased objective reality can be trying to smear her, right?--RexMundane 08:46, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

I think Coulter is Funny. Liberals are allowed to have their Al Frankens -why can't we have our comedians. Of course, some of her language is inappropriate for small children. However, for adults -she is just fine.

ChristianFaith 14:10, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

Schoolyard taunt?

The thing that nobody seems to be commenting on is that she believes she's defending herself by calling the word "a schoolyard taunt."

Are "schoolyard taunts" the proper stuff of discourse between adults on matters of consequence? Does she think it is appropriate for a woman in her forties to be behaving like a schoolchild? Dpbsmith 22:28, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

why don't you call her up and ask her? Jaques 20:07, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Do you know where I could get appropriate contact information? Dpbsmith 06:31, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Get over it. Most politicians have occasionally made a childish wisecrack about someone on the other side of a political battle. Find me someone who never uses a taunt, and that would be news. RSchlafly 20:44, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

I didn't say "it doesn't happen." Are you saying you consider it to be appropriate? For liberals? For conservatives? For responsible adults? Dpbsmith 11:13, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

I'd call Bush lied, people died a taunt. No one seems to care about how many Kurds Saddam gassed. --Ed Poor 22:40, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Erm, you could say that Bush cared for the Kurds, considering he deposed Saddam. Highly unlikely, though. --Hojimachong^talk 22:42, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Offensive manner

We could mention reports of people taking offense but it's not objective to label her manner as offensive. Here's an example. Suppose I say that atheism is sinful, and John Smith feels offended. Have I given offense? Hard to say.

But if he voices an objection, we can certainly quote him:

• Ed says atheism is a sin. John called Ed's remark "offensive".

That's how I would do it. --Ed Poor 11:46, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

It would not be offensive to atheists, because sin is the transgression of God's Law, and atheists do not believe in God, so it would be like someone accusing you of transgressing the law of Zeus, or Baal. Teresita 14:43, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

"Comedic"

The opening sentence describes that Ann Coulter is "comedic" yet the article only demonstrates that the despises "liberals" and is indifferent to cultures of other nations. Previously there was the commentary on the not-gay-related-at-all John Edwards "Faggot" remark, and since a room full of conservatives found that laugh-out-loud hilarious for whatever reason, that claim could be made, but since that is no longer present on the article there is no explanation or demonstration of her being funny. Please either remove the word or demonstrate how she's "Comedic", and if you could, explain how calling people Stupid Traitorous Lying Religiously-Godless Fanatical Faggots (who must not be spoken to) is funny? Here I am, brain the size of a planet, and it only seems to me to be insulting. --RexMundane 12:51, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

If it will give you any comfort, Ann Coulter is relegated to the lunatic fringe by the rest of the right-wing commentariat, along with Michael Savage. You would never find her as a guest on the Hugh Hewitt show, for example. Teresita 14:40, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

I dont think being invited as a major speaker at the Conservatice Political Action Conference jives with being "relegated to the fringe," and neither does Mitt Romney endorsing her before she speaks, but maybe thats just me.--RexMundane 15:56, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

"My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building,"

I agree that this is sufficiently troubling that a good source is needed. I think it is relevant precisely because it seems to me to go beyond the bounds of anything that can possibly be brushed off as humor. I think an Associated Press story printed in USA Today is a good enough source.

If the issue is whether the New York Observer actually printed this, I'm willing to pay the $2.95 to confirm it, but I don't think this is at issue. If this issue is whether she really said it, presumably if she issued a "clarification" (which IMHO makes it worse) to rightwingnews.com that means she acknowledges saying it. I haven't actually found this in rightwingnews.com, but believe that the AP would be reliable on this. As nearly as I can tell, rightwingnews.com is actually a conservative website (not one on which liberals track right wing excesses or anything like that). Dpbsmith 09:05, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Found the Right Wing News interview. Dpbsmith 10:56, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Help me write Out of context. It also might need a title change. --Ed Poor 10:59, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

interesting artlcle

As you can imagine (if you read my user page) I somewhat disagree with Ms. Coulter on one or two issues. What I found amusing about this article was that, after the blushingly adoring intro paragraphs, there are a bunch of quotes. Ironically, they are the ones I am familiar with, from hard core left wing sources. Nice job on the balance! First she is praised, then her nut-job ideas are actually quoted so people can "decide" who what she is. Human 22:32, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

The misquote was obviously intended to make Coulter appear to be joking about genocide when in actual context it is nothing of the sort. She in fact is paraphrasing liberals. RobS 23:00, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Which quote are you referring to? I am talking about all of them. Human 23:11, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Are you saying these quotes are made up? --PF Fox 12:52, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

No, not at all. I just find it odd that the same quotes that travel in liberal circles to show, um, what we think of Ms. Coulter are the ones being presented here. Meaning, they mostly horrify me, rather than make her seem like a leader or intelligent pundit. Ah, and the previous comments get confusing - I was asking "which quote" is the "misquote". My first comment was about "all of them". Human 13:16, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

Why do you find it surprising that liberals would comment on the outrageous things that Ms. Coulter has said? Do you think that her horrifying comments about executing liberals and her disgusting smear against women who lost their husbands to 9/11 are not revealing and should not been repeated when assessing her as a pundit? --PF Fox 13:19, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

Do conservatives really consider her a "thinker" or am I reading too much in this? She sounds like a total fruitcake. I mean, if she didn't go to law school, I imagine her pushing a shopping cart and arguing with mailboxes. That's about the level of thought I expect form her. Who cares what she says? She's a total idiot. Flippin 13:23, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

She's a "total idiot" who is regularly invited to give her opinions at major Conservative gatherings and on nationally broadcast talk shows, and the misinformation she's disseminated about, for instance, Joseph McCarthy, is routinely repeated as fact by naive and ignorant souls who mistake her books for nonfiction. --PF Fox 13:27, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

I know, I know. I'm just saying she's basically a troll that gets fed by ultra-conservatives and I wish they'd stop. Kind of like watching an ugly guy ask out a cute girl and the process takes a long time and is really uncomfortable.... That is what I think every time I see her on TV. Flippin 14:21, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

Why should they "stop feeding her?" She's not only a valuable source of misinformation, she helps to push out the boundaries of debate in this country closer and closer to direct advocacy of violence and political repression against Moslems, liberals, and other people she dislikes. They like that. That's why they "feed" her. --PF Fox 14:25, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

makes my heart "bleed" a little more every time I read the first two lines of her column on Thursdays. Flippin 14:56, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

Strong following?

While there has been much talk about her as a role model above, I'd like to know if the following is true:

"Coulter has earned a strong following among conservatives".

Every right-wing american I know either considers her a joke, or at least "you have Michael Moore, we have Ann Coulter, they are equally bad" (not that I would ever compare Moore to Coulter). Leopeo 04:16, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

By taking on a human form it is able to gather minions.

MiddleMan

"We need to execute people like John Walker [Lindh] in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too. Otherwise, they will turn out to be outright traitors," Conservative Political Action Conference, January 2002. Coulter later clarified what she meant; "when I said we should "execute" John Walker Lindh, I mis-spoke. What I meant to say was 'We should burn John Walker Lindh alive and televise it on prime-time network TV'. My apologies for any misunderstanding that might have occurred. " [9]

A very Christian idea. I'm sure Jesus approves whole-heartedly. Prof0705 12:05, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

There is capital punishment in the Bible. Do you think the dictum "Judge not, lest ye be judged" was meant to give carte blanche to evil? Jesus spent most of his time telling people to stop doing bad things. --Ed Poor 12:08, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

I agree. Jesus regularly advocated burning sinners to death. I'm agreeing with you.Prof0705 12:10, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

The only places I can think of where Jesus did anything like call for the death penalty is when he's calling out the Pharisees in Mark 7 and Matthew 15. Brainslug 12:15, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

Jersey girls

moved from User talk:Ed Poor

"Ad Hominem" Attacks:

"Rather than answering any of her criticisms of liberal ideology substantively, critics made ad hominem attacks. Ad hominem or "to the person", rather than against what she is saying. It is typical of liberals to change the subject and refuse to debate issues but rather to distract people with side issues or outright irrelevancies."

Okay Ed, let's see if I've got this straight. Ann Coulter describing the Jersey Widows as "harpies," suggesting they hurry up and pose for PLAYBOY before they get too old, and announcing that they are "enjoying" their husbands deaths is NOT an ad hominem attack on these widows -- But objecting to her insulting these women in such a gross, deeply personal manner IS an ad hominem attack?

Care to explain this? --PF Fox 15:37, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

Ad hominem means against the person, not against what they're saying. If the Jersey widows have presented a POV on topic X, and if Coulter wore to say that their POV is wrong or should be ignored because of personal attribute Y, then she'd be making an ad hominem argument. If so, you should describe all that in the Ann Coulter article. Be sure to state whet the widows' POV is first, though. --Ed Poor 09:03, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

(afterthought) I just found out the the phrase "ad hominem" is also used simply as a synonym for "personal attack". It does not have to be a fallacy, it can simply be bad manners. Perhaps this is the sense in which you were using the term? If so, please be clear.

We need to distinguish between (1) ad hominem argment (sometimes expressed in Latin as argument ad hominem) and (2) a personal attack, e.g., a gratuitious swipe, an insult, etc. If you plan on staying around in this encyclopedia project, you must be prepared at a moment's notice to explain yourself more clearly. Using straightforward, unambiguous terminology is always better than using vague language, especially when it's about a hot topic. Clear terms can cool things down. --Ed Poor 09:12, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

Yes, Ed, I know that "Ad Hominem means against the person, not against what they're saying." And yes, ad hominems quite frequently take the form of a personal attack, as Ann Coulter's ad hominem against the Jersey Girls most certainly does. It therefore qualifies as both a fallacy and bad manners. What do you consider unclear about this? What do you consider puzzling or ambiguous about the inappropriateness of a passage in which Ann Coulter's refers to these women as "harpies" who are enjoying their husband's deaths, makes the disgusting suggestion that they pose for Playboy before they get too old, and suggests that their deceased husbands might have been planning to divorce them anyway? Do you really need me to explain to you WHY this passage of Ann Coulter's qualifies as both an ad hominem attack and an outrageous and inappropriate personal attack on them?

The Jersey girls roused Coulter's ire by insisting on the formation of the 9/11 commission and by being both vocal and critical about the way in which 9/11 has been handled by the Bush administration. Coulter responded by grossly insulting them. I invite you to read Laurie Van Auken's July 22, 2005 statement (http://www.nowpublic.com/node/16472) and explain to me where exactly she talks about enjoying her husband's death, where she speculates about maybe appearing in PLAYBOY, where she talks about her husband trying to divorce her. Then maybe you can explain HOW Coulter galloping off into speculation about their marriages and their looks qualifies as a substantive response.

Still looking forward to your vigorous defense of the...uh..."arguments" presented by Coulter in that quote. Remember, Ed -- use "straightforward unambiguous terminology" while you're offering us all what you know about these women's personal lives and appearances, and be sure to explain to us how it's relevant. --PF Fox 13:17, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

You seem to misunderstand the purpose of this web site. I'm not about to "defend" anyone, any more than you would be justified to "attack" them. We have already agreed that personal attacks are out of place here. Or at least I have decreed them to be out of place, and I have fairly consistent backing from senior staff on that. Whether you agree or not, I'm not sure.

But as you know, Ed, the issue is not whether or personal attacks are acceptable here on Conservapedia. The issue is Ann Coulter's attack on the Jersey Girls in her recent book. I included the relevant quote in a Conservapedia article on that book. You removed it on the strange grounds that somehow that quote was irrelevant, and then added an odd little paragraph about how liberals are frequently guilty of ad hominem attacks -- something that made no sense unless you were claiming that objecting to Coulter's attack on the Jersey Girls somehow qualified as a liberal "ad hominem" attack on her. --PF Fox 18:39, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

Your strategy seems to be to attack Coulter and then challenge me to refute your attack. What you hope to accomplish by this strategy is beyond me. If it has any connection with writing the Ann Coulter article, I'll allow it, though.

My "strategy" is to include relevant passages in Conservapedia articles. You didn't want that quote from Coulter included, probably because it reveals far too much about why so many people object to Ann Coulter. I maintain the passage is relevant and belongs in the article.--PF Fox 18:40, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

Perhaps you find Coulter's remarks insulting.

Don't YOU find her comments about the Jersey Girls insulting? --PF Fox 18:39, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

If so, you might want to add something to the article about her writing and/or speaking style. Does she pepper her comments with personal attacks? If so, how often? And how does the frequency or percentage of this compare to other pundits, authors, or public figures? Do politicians ever do this?

Yes, she peppers her comments with personal attacks, far more frquently than other pundits, authors, and public figures who enjoy the same level of exposure. I know of no politician who has made remarks comparable to her's about "physically intimidating liberals" or her "witty" implications that Moslems smell (quotes happily supplied on request) and I would be very interested to learn of any, if you know about them. And if you really REALLY want me to add these kind of comments to the article on GODLESS I'll be happy to do it -- and will expect those comments to remain in place once they're there. --PF Fox 18:39, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

Or maybe it is Personal attacks in general you disagree with. That's a red link, which as you know means that you are free to start an article on that topic. Are personal attacks always out of place?

Unless you are a close relative and friend, yes. --PF Fox 18:39, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

Is it wrong to accuse people of personal faults?

If the "personal faults" you are accusing them of involve information you have no way of knowing, like how they felt about their husbands, what the state of their marriage was, and whether they have plans to pose for nudie magazines, yes, it is wrong.--PF Fox 18:39, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

Or is it only wrong when you do so to distract attention from what-they-are-saying to who-they-are?

The kind of remarks Ann Coulter made about the Jersey Widows are wrong in any context.--PF Fox 18:39, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

What do you think of Double standards?

They stink. --PF Fox 18:39, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

Should one standard of conduct be applied equally to all people and all nations?

Yes. --PF Fox 18:39, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

Or should our political opponents be held to a substantially higher standard than our political allies?

No. --PF Fox 18:39, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

How much slack are we entitled to cut our friends?

None. --PF Fox 18:39, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

Or, to put it another way, how much wrongdoing must we overlook in our friends before we finally have to say, "You have crossed the line. I just can't cover for you any more."?

None. --PF Fox 18:39, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

Back to the matter at hand: you have repeated in some additional detail that Coulter attacked the "Jersey Girls". I'm not sure why you added all this detail, because I read a lot about it when the flap occurred. There's no question that her comments constitute a personal attack. Same as her swipe at Edwards:

• At the end of her speech ... Coulter said: "I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate, John Edwards, but it turns out that you have to go into rehab if you use the word faggot, so I'm kind of at an impasse." [2]

I added "that detail" because in a discussion of the book in which it appeared, it is relevant. --PF Fox 18:39, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

Would you like to write something about the way Coulter attracts attention to her message with sarcasm and insults? The JG and JE cracks certainly look typical. --Ed Poor 15:01, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

• A member of the Sept. 11 commission ... lashed out at ... Coulter for a "hate-filled attack" in saying the widows whose husbands died in the World Trade Center used the deaths for their own political gain. [3]

I am more interested in the extent to which the right continues to invite her to important conservative conferences, even as they attempt to deflect criticsm of her remarks with the old "She's just kidding," or "the poor dear just wants attention..." wheezes. --PF Fox 18:39, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

Even though this is a completely one-side article which amounts to a personal attack on Coulter, we can cite it - if we investigate the context of Coulter's remarks. Was she just saying that the widows used the deaths for their own political gain, or did she offer any grounds for saying this?

How does simply quoting Ann Coulter and noting that her comments aroused controversy qualify as a "personal attack?" --PF Fox 18:39, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

An even more interesting question, of course, if whether she only responded to the widows' political remarks or requests with an attack - or whether she had counterargments. If the press only reported her "insult" then the real story is how one-sided the press is. Are AP, Washington Post, USA Today, et al. dominated by Democratic partisanship or are they known to be utterly objective or even neutral? --Ed Poor 15:15, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

That question is completely irrelevant, Ed. Even if Coulter included substantive counter-arguments to the JG's statements, that would not excuse her calling them "harpies," accusing them of "enjoying" their husband's deaths, and nastily implying that they should pose for PLAYBOY.--PF Fox 18:39, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

Protests

Shouldn't something be added about the many protests staged by students and others when she's speaking, not to mention the infamous pie incident from The University of Arizona? SirJim 18:23, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

Specific mention of certain protests probably isn't important, as certain student activists/extremists will protest just about anything. However, the pie incident actually does deserve to be included in my opinion. Bohdan 18:29, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

See what the others think. Bohdan 18:29, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

I think it gives a victory to what was intended as a political act but in reality is a criminal assualt. Personally, I'd be opposed, unless someone can give a good reason for inclusion. RobS 18:36, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

It shows the depravity and incivility of those who did it. Bohdan 18:38, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

This was a take off of quite a common European leftist technique to grab headlines, and embarass high profile people. It is quite commonly used in the Netherlands, I believe. It wouldn't have happened here if people didn't hear about it through news sources and such, so I think we have ample evidence that reporting it only encourages this sort of criminal assualt on political opponents. RobS 19:04, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

Sounds good. I'm not surprised it happens in the Netherlands. Bohdan 19:21, 18 July 2007 (EDT)