You used the term 'working overtime' in conjunction with the liberals. 50% of them don't work regular time and will not give up their drinking, needle jabbing, and pot smoking time for anyone. That puts a hell of a workload on the two liberals that have a regular job.

As you say I'm sure the loony left is going to try to kill themselves on this one but so far, 2 paraphrased sentences does not a plagiarist make.

All this does -so far- is bring her more attention.

It's hardly serious plagiarism, since it's a regurgitation of a news story factual backgrounder, not some theory or argument of another passed off as her own. And it's a few sentences, for crying out loud.

Not like she lifted whole exigesis from academic works a la Doris Kearns Goodwin, or Al Gore writing that he thought up the internet.

Weak.

That would mean two people read that issue of the Press Herald. Wohoo! Circulation is up.

Good, it keeps small minds occupied, Kevin

The 2nd example is nothing. The first example sure looks like it lifted from the Herald piece, but, Mitchell beat me to saying, it's just a brief presentation of simple facts, nothing else.

If I were to write on my blog: "As professional provocateurs, Franken and Coulter both are cagey enough to measure the level of shock, outrage, or hysteria, in direct proportion to the quantity (and quality) of cameras and microphones nearby," that would be plagerism. But if I wrote: "Water freezes at zero degrees Centigrade," I'd think not, even though it's been written before.

However, the exact words used -- and in the order their used -- may be problematic. She could have simply changed "massive" to "giant" or huge", and flipped some the phrases around and tweaked their language and there'd be no prob.

The History Chanel one is attributed to Jay Matthews, "In Harmony: Man's Machine," Washington Post, August 24, 1982. Notes for Chapter 1.

If you can't beat them on the issues, attach their credibility. Has anyone else read "How To Speak To A Liberal"? She's right on the money again ... as usual ...

I don't agree with the tone and attitude that Ann gets on this site ... I guess I need an occasional reminder that Wizbang! is -*not*- a conservative blog. I disagree that Ann is the opposite side of the coin that has Al Franken imprinted upon it ...

If Ann is one thing, it's well researched. Ann always does her research, and now they are trying to use that due diligence against her.

For me, it only confirms that she's spot-on, once again. I'm only on chapter 3 so far ... I'm really enjoying this one, and want to savor the flavor.

Ha Ha I think Shes great! really turns the screws...

What Ann says is very mean .........but very true.......

Well, plagiarism is generally concerned with the theft of INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY. This isn't a scholarly dissertation in which someone's intellectual property has been stolen. It is a clipping from a newspaper article where some unfortunate reporter got a boring assignment.

So this isn't really plagiarism in the generally accepted way. Sure, she should have attributed it, but who really cares? There is no injured party, and the lack of a winner or loser distinguishes her simple error from plagiarism.

She's been stealing Michael Savage's "liberalism is a mental disorder" catchphrase with one variant or another.

I think Ann speaks to the liberals in exactly the same manner as most liberals speak to others. It is shocking because she is a conservative but for liberals this is standard fare.

I don't know if it's much of a compliment to be told that your manner of argument is about as classy as the liberals, though.

Ahhh, the angry right in more moral problems. Her felony investigation should be a hoot. She already lawyered up.

With all the fraudulant political prosecutions in the last few years I dont blame Her.

And since when is it a moral problem to seek legal counsel?

Normally, it's not a problem, but this Republican hate-monger also committed a felony. Other than that, no big deal. CofC.

Picky, picky, picky.

Get a life. Read the book.Enjoy it.Then smoke a cigar and piss off a lib...

Man jp2, Id hate to get you on a jury of my peers.. unless of course I was Ted Bundy.

Now now jp 1/2 where have we seen where she has been charged with a felony?

Hmmmm.

A SINGLE SENTENCE??

Are you actually suggesting that because she wrote a descriptive sentence that matched an actual event that this is somehow proof of PLAGARISM?

You put 500 people in a room and ask them to write a single descriptive sentence about an actual event. How many will be exactly alike?

This is frankly beyond nonsense.

Are you actually suggesting that because she wrote a descriptive sentence that matched an actual event that this is somehow proof of PLAGARISM?

What part of "So is Coulter a plagiarist? At this point no..." do you not understand?

There is one sentence that cannot be explained by mere chance, but that once sentence does not consitute a pattern of plagarism. The point is that sentence is likely to lead to others looking at the text with a fine tooth comb. If it's an anomoly, then there won't be anything to find...

But if someone dredges through the book and finds 10, 20, 50, 100, etc. simalarly unlikely coincidences, at what point will that be enough?

With the "How Opal Mehta Got Kissed, Got Wild and Got a Life" by the Harvard freshman Kaavya Viswanathan, that was pulled by the publisher for plagarism that number was on the order of 10-15 selections.

Wow. I pity the poor fool, Ann Coulter. It's obvious that she has many, many problems. She is mentally deranged and is quite the psychopath. She knows not what she speaks and knows not what she plagiarizes.

I hear she also likes to drink a lot....maybe she has an alcohol problem.

Poor Ann....so many problems. The picture above shows two other things. She's skinnier than I thought, and perhaps she is anorexic.

Second, it is quite clear from the picture that she is a man.

We cannot criticize the poor thing....no wonder she is so hateful and spews forth such vitriol. With so many problems, she must feel so insecure that she has to speak out against her enemies with such hate.

The second sentence clearly isn't.

The first appears a virtually verbatim transcription, but the wording isn't so original as to constitute plagiarism on its own. One should read the surrounding sentences and compare them to the source.

A single lifted sentence could constitute plagiarism in the strictest sense, IF it were a clearly original one. Lifting that sentence, if that's what she did, would have been poor judgement, but it would never make a court case.

I suspect if these two passages are the best to be offered, it's a pile of hooey. I will be happy to revise that opinion if there are more, or if the surrounding passage in the second case above is also suspiciously similar to the source.

Oh please! Are they saying you can't use a sentence from someone's book without it being called plagiarism?! Give me a break! Geeze!

Yes. That's the common definition of plagiarism.

Wanna use someone else's sentence? You can, but you have to quote them. Otherwise you done wrong.

"Are they saying you can't use a sentence from someone's book without it being called plagiarism?!"

There are useful tools to avoid that kind of thing. They're called "quotation marks". I just used them for that purpose, see? And two more, for a different purpose entirely! They're such versatile things!

I think it's fair to say that Coulter is at very least a lazy writer. Kevin makes a good point that her schtick is somewhat similar to Franken's, although Franken does appear to have slightly more scholarly approach to such things. (One might call it pedantry, or just "having an unpaid research assistant".) His point in the Coulter chapter of Lies... was that Coulter's research -- 'my book has footnotes!' -- was shallow and frequently a bunch of ass: the stuff about Dale Earnhardt's death not making it to the NYT front page, fr'instance, was pretty easily refuted. Franken's assertion was that you could most easily come to Coulter's conclusions if you were really crap at searching with Lexis-Nexis.

The obvious solution for Coulter is not to bother. If you're going to be a pure bomb-throwing polemicist, and that's undoubtedly her talent, then don't let facts or the pursuit thereof get in the way. Her publisher could always hire a proper sub-editor, but that costs money, and most political books are produced on the cheap.

Those who call her books 'well-researched' are plain wrong, and they're buying into a sucker's debate by claiming so. That's because they generally aren't brazen enough to take the Coulter line of referring people to the footnotes, and then changing the subject when they point out the source material is either a) inaccurately cited; or b) lifted verbatim.

Needless to say, Ann Coulter has mastered in print the role of the Classic Internet Troll, with the genius to realise that, unlike on the internet, there's an audience who'll pay to read your trolling.

I love Ann, and agree with her on most things.

To compare her to Franken is like comparing apples to idiots...

That she ruffles the feathers of libtards is just an added bonus, and shows she always hits the bullseye.

...But OMG, she didn't credit a sentence! Prepare the gallows!

Ann Coulter is a very deranged person. Her supporters are on the fringe right such as Pat Buchanan, Terry Jeffrey of Human Events, Robert Novak, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Bill Bennett, Pat Robertson, David Limbaugh, Rush Limbaugh, Mary Matalin, Tucker Carlson, and Joe Scarborough. The Christian right endorses her hate speech and organizations like the Federalist Society, Heritage Foundation, and Human Events support her 100%. Coulter is not as dumb as people claim but she is a mouthpiece for the right even as they keep distance from her im public. But she is welcome in conservative circles and at all the right wing think tanls and organizations as a major player in their cause to maintain power and attack anyone who is a threat to the right wing cause or their beloved President Bush who is supposed to commence the armageddon the crazies want so badly.

Moses, your bold is nice, but you'd be more convincing if you wrote it in ALL CAPS WITH LOTS!!! OF!!! EXCLAMATION!!! POINTS!!!

Anyone ever notice that when someone's message is very lacking in substance they attempt to make up for it by posting entirely in bold or caps ?

Curious.

- MikeB

So is Coulter a plagiarist? At this point no, but there's a whole book to look through, which I suspect the legions of those who despise Coulter are organizing for right this very moment.

Clever of her to include that sentence from the Press Herald so that hundreds of her critics would suddenly find a reason to buy her book.

If the Left® really thought that Ann Coulter was a loon and a detriment to the Repblican Party, why in the world would they want to end her literary career with charges of plagarism? It would seem to me that you would want her out there shooting her mouth off. You could then take that brush and paint the entire Republican Party as being like her even if that comparison is not valid.

That's just what I see. Of course, what do I know. I'm just a dumb ole' conservative.

At least she isn't making up her own quotes and then using them again in another story as "proof", a la The Exalted Ward "Professor for Life" Churchill.

Checked out the Rude Pundit; some might describe him as a vulgar man. It strikes me that for all his hand-wringing about Ann Coulter's "crime", much of what he says would seem to be defamatory, unless Ms. Coulter happens to agree that "Why Ann Coulter Is a C*nt" has some basis in fact.

Perhaps she is in fact "a bl*w job queen", as he suggests.

Perhaps he's right that Ms. Coulter's book is "Extended projectile vomiting retched out by a pencil-legged harridan scratching semi-words in her own puke...".

And, gosh, he might be right that "...not only is Coulter a shitty writer and a bugf*ck crazed presence any time she is remotely challenged..."

And who can argue with the rapier-like literary brilliance of conclusions like this: "She looks like the crazed lingerer at a bar at 3 a.m., desperate for some fat f*ck to take her home, beat her, and f*ck her face. B*tch has been ridden hard and put away sp**ge covered, taken out the next day, stiff and sticky, and spit on to be cleaned up for her interviews before using her to wipe Republican asses. Goddamn, time does not treat the nutzoid well. The Rude Pundit wouldn't f*ck her if he was given Rush Limbaugh's tiny, diseased pr*ck to f*ck her with." Ouch. That's gonna leave a mark, I'll betcha!

Now, this is just one single story from June 8, so I certainly don't intend to demean the entire body of his gift to the literary world. I mean, who am I to suggest that the author might be, uh, somewhat exercised on the subject of Ann Coulter?

I'm sure we all agree that we should all take this man's carefully considered judgements very seriously. Gosh, who are we to judge such talent? I feel so...unworthy in the shadow of his towering intellect...

What an obnoxious maroon.

But if someone dredges through the book and finds 10, 20, 50, 100, etc. simalarly unlikely coincidences, at what point will that be enough?

I think to get there you would have to assume that she is unaware that the left would like nothing more. She has to absolutely know that every sentence she writes is going to be scrutinized, if for no other reason than to attempt to refute her points. For her to knowingly plagiarize would be to commit career hari-kari.

But she is welcome in conservative circles and at all the right wing think tanls and organizations as a major player...

Yeah, I remember her sitting right next to George the senior at the RNC convention.

Let's see if eveyone is forgiving to Ann as they were to Doris Kearns Goodwin.

Not likely.

As a conservative person, Ann Coulter doesn't speak for me or any conservative republican with any values. She is a hatemonger and it's putting so much dirt on conservatives by going from one TV channel to the other spreding her poison. She is like Randi Rhodes on the left. Two godless - money driven - selfish women full of hate.

"I'm sure we all agree that we should all take this man's carefully considered judgements very seriously."

Oh, come on, you can do better than ad hominem. The 'Rude Pundit' schtick is as much an act as Coulter's bomb-throwing. Both believe in saying the unsayable. One uses cusswords.

Is that first graf not a straight lift or not? It's a yes or no answer that has nothing to do with how many f-words appear in other posts, so stop trying to change the subject. It just makes you look lame, especially when you devote several hundred words to what's essentially 'look over there at the rude words!'

For her to knowingly plagiarize would be to commit career hari-kari.

Apparently not when you have willing apologists like the ones who've commented above, who'd buy the books if they were 90% plagiarism and 10% 'liberals are pooheads'.

Who was Ann Coulter plagiarizing when she said that the ONLY bad thing about Tim McVeigh was that he didn't bomb New York?

Wait, no, that wasn't plagiarism. That was her being a terrorist-loving traitorous psychopath in her own very original way.

Indeed, 9/11 was probably one of the best days of her life. Most victims were religiously and politically diverse blue-staters, all of whom Coulter has publicly wished dead. I think when she was criticizing the 9/11 widows for "enjoying their husbands deaths," it was because she wanted to keep all the joy over dead liberals and Clinton-voters and other untermenschen just for herself.

But don't worry, Coulter fans: I'm sure she'd share some of that special joy with you.

At least bobdog used quotes appropriately. A lesson for Ms. Coulter. And, you know, I think liberals have conered the market on being especially insulting to women on the other side of the political spectrum, right? I mean never a bad thing (and with curse words, oh my!) was said about say, hmmm, Hillary Clinton or Janet Reno. Yeah, it's all libs...

No, I was just intimating that the author was an infantile pig who should not be taken seriously, not to put too fine a point on it. I trust you actually read his June 8 post (or did you write it?).

His main complaint, as is yours, is that Ann Coulter uses ad hominem attacks, and then lapses into what can only be described as vicious, self-absorbed raving. The guy clearly has an anger problem to go with his vulgar and sophomoric writing style, and it's nowhere near the quality he thinks it is. But my point isn't about profanity -- I'm certainly no holy roller. It's about hypocrisy.

I'll leave the ad hominem stuff up to him, since he seems to have polished his skills quite well.

Not to confuse anybody, my reply was directed at ahem, although I guess they apply to TTT as well, from the looks of it.

Are they handing out free admission tickets over at Kos or something?

If the Left® really thought that Ann Coulter was a loon and a detriment to the Repblican Party, why in the world would they want to end her literary career with charges of plagarism?

Wow, you really got us there. We must obviously think that Coulter is dangerously sane if we mention that she lifted a few passages without proper attribution (and yes children, you have to provide proper attribution, even if you're just paraphrasing an actual event (something you should have learned in school)). And rearranging a few words doesn't count as paraphrasing, even if you happen to like the person who wrote it. If that's what you did in school (which you probably did) then you were cheating. Sorry. That's just how it works. Unless you're describing an event that is widely known, you have to cite your sources.

As for the idea that we must obviously believe Coulter is dangerously sane, believe it our not, most liberals aren't the "results oriented" folks you guys are. We accuse people of plagerism when we believe they're plagerizing, and we also happen to think that Coulter is a loon who is making you people look stupid. Perhaps we should be more crafty like you guys and pick our methods and facts based upon the outcome we're expecting to achieve, but then we'd be on the slippery slope down to conservativism. We prefer to find and report the facts, even if they undermine our cause. I'm sure I'll be laughed at for saying that, but that's just because I'm a liberal and you guys have been told that we're propaganda mavens like you guys. That's also why I'm a lazy, drinking, heroin junkie, just as Scrapiron said, and not the self-employed CPA I pretend to be. It's easy to see your expectations come true, if that's all you're willing to see.

BTW, I never read this blog and only followed the link from Digby's, but just based upon this post, I feel really bad for Mr. Wizbang. He clearly understands what a dangerous joke Coulter is, yet most of the commenters here clearly are big fans of hers. All because she reinforces the anti-liberal stereotypes they so dearly need to believe in. I'd hate it if most of my readers were significantly dumber than myself. I'm sure that's quite frustrating.

I've always laughed at how conservatives believe that their favorite bloggers aren't conservatives if they don't completely believe everything that they're supposed to. I mean, Ann Coulter is one of the worst things to happen to conservatives, and I say that as a former dittohead (circa 1991-1993). I strongly suspect that she's not really conservative at all. She just found a schtick that pays the bills, and is laughing at you guys all the way to the bank. Oh, but wait. I'm supposed to want bad things to happen to you guys, so I guess I'm not supposed to mention any of this. Nevermind. Coulter is a genius. She's really screwing us over and has exposed us all as the unemployed welfare-loving heroin addicts that we are. Damn you Coulter!!

You guys are hilarious.

Hi, Bobdog. Care to answer my question? Was Coulter plagiarizing when she said she wished Tim McVeigh had bombed New York, or was that her own gift? And regardless of where it came from, do you disassociate yourself from such a comment?

No, I just don't care about one sentence, nor does anyone else.

The response to this entry just goes to show you how far the Left and Right have diverged in America. The irony of the situation is that the Right depends heavily on their record in national security and how they handled 9/11, and with Coulter's book coming out and saying these negative things about the 9/11 widows, I can't help but think this is potentially catastrophic for the Republican party. The party would be and is very smart to distance itself from Coulter, however valid or invalid her points may be, as she is putting in jeopardy what is the party's strongest position.

On another note, everyone needs to calm down. There's a C word that isn't thrown around often: compromise. The Left and Right are so Hell-bent on destroying each other, I think they're lost sight of people should really be doing: governing.

Gosh, I'd imagine the parents of all the children in the daycare center who were blown up by McVeigh, as well as the many New Yorkers who don't need extra invitations for terrorists to murder them, plus people in general who don't support murder and terrorism, would care. A bit.

I think she may have a larger secret that could potentially ruin her with her beloved Right Wing and the Christian Right - she may just be gay, the reason for no husband in site. I think that is her best keep secret.

She and Drudge do compliment each other you know....

She may have a little more in common with Jeff Gannon than plagerism....than you all think....

Dr. Biobrain, it's "plagiarism".

Did I say I was a fan of Ann Coulter? I didn't even say I agreed with her, although I do, some of the time. Other times, she's as shrill and bitchy as the majority of the stuff at Huffington, Kos or DU. And I'm no fan of theirs, either.

But I can make my point without launching into some wierd, angry masturbation fantasy before I return to "wiping Republican a**es".

Cole, it's "plagiarism".

You don't have the same IP address as Dr. Biobrain, do you?

Nah...

Who is Dr Biobrain? I have never commented on this blog - this was a first for me.

Why is this alleged Conservative woman unmarried? Where are her children? She is no Michelle Malkin....

If I didn't know any better, I'd swear you guys were parodying stupid conservatives. Like this bobdog person who complains of Rude Pundit's schtick, ending with:

What an obnoxious maroon.

First off, Rude Pundit's entire act is based upon the idea that he's extremely rude and obnoxious. That's his claim to fame and his name makes that clear. He's a rude pundit. That's not really my thing, so I never read his blog. But he is supposed to be openly rude and insulting. That's the whole point.

And so for someone to attack him for that is a bit silly. That'd be like attacking Sam Kinison for shouting or attacking Bush for always evoking 9/11 every time someone disagrees with him. This is just part of their act. Kinison didn't need to shout and Bush doesn't really believe that 9/11 made Congress, the courts, and the voters obsolete. They just do that to get your attention. It's just basic marketing.

And as long as Rude Pundit is open with his rudeness and doesn't pretend to be above the fray (as many rude conservatives do), then what's the problem? Just as if Coulter was open about her insulting hackery and fake footnotes, people would be silly to attack her for it. It's only because she pretends to be serious that people denounce her. Perhaps if she added "Deceitful Hack" to her book covers, she'd get a free pass for her antics.

And so that makes it all the weirder that bobdog would denounce Rude Pundit for being rude and insulting by...being rude and insulting. There was no substance to bobdog's comment. Only mockery. Mockery of Rude Pundit's "towering intellect" and his "gift to the literary world". And in case we didn't understand that bobdog was being sarcastic, he ends with the silly insult. Great. Wow. Talk about your towering intellects. He rudely mocks a guy named Rude Pundit for relying heavily on rudeness. Had bobdog's comment been more concise, it would have been a spot-on parody worthy of myself.

You guys are hilarious.

http://www.gawker.com/news/ann-coulter/possible-plagiarist-ann-coulter-may-have-been-plagiarizing-as-far-back-as-1997-when-she-was-36-180344.php

bobdog: was that first cited graf from Godless lifted verbatim without attribution? It's a very simple question.

(I have nothing against verbal bomb-throwing on either side. It's part of the landscape, and it's certainly not a new thing. That said, bomb-throwing and cries of 'incivility' tend to look a little hypocritical when used in the same breath.)

LOL... Someone sure stirred up the libtard hornet's nest!

Zarqawi dead.
Rove not indicted.
Joe Wilson proven a liar (again).
Haditha "massacre" story crumbling.
Kerry re-hash of his "service" re-fisked.
Pat Kennedy guilty of DUI.
Bush surprise visit in Iraq.

Once again, let us dine on your tears, you wastes of skin.

Go Ann!

Dr. Biobrain, it's "plagiarism".

Ok, so I'm a lousy speller and didn't bother editing this in Word to use my normal spellchecker. Your point? And why are you telling me that you're not a fan of Coulter? I didn't quote you and wasn't speaking of you in particular at all. And what's with the references to masturbation and "Republican a**es"? Have you confused me with someone else?

And why is it that you corrected both me and Cole for misspelling "plagiarism", but didn't correct the spelling of the guy I quoted? Or any other conservative? I count the word being misspelled eight times on this commentboard (not including other people's quotes); including two misspellings by Kevin. And he even spelled it properly in the original post. And yet somehow, the only two misspellers you mention are liberals. Typical.

I've generally found that people who focus on misspellings really don't have much else to talk about.

I quite agree with you Dr Biobrain, they are building snowmen under the palm trees....

Once again, let us dine on your tears, you wastes of skin.

You people are weird.

Oh, and for anyone interested in knowing how upset us liberals are over Zarqawi's death, I blogged about it here. Needless to say, I've gotten over my despair and am once again an America-hating liberal who wants the terrorists to institute their Gay-Loving Feminazi Islamafacism all over the world. Sorry.

Dr. Biobrain, actually, I was trying to be polite, and I think I did OK, although referring to him as an "infantile pig" was probably over the top. It annoys the pigs to be compared in such a way. But I do think that "obnoxious maroon" is arguably appropriate. As you suggest, the "obnoxious" tone of his article is deliberate. "Maroon" is a reference to somebody who doesn't spend much time in the three dimensional world. Unfair, maybe, but I think accurate.

OK, the truth: I was surprised at Kevin's reference to an isolated, relatively lucid post from this blog looked at the Rude Pundit website. Put plain, I was disgusted by the vileness and hypocrisy of his June 8 post.

With due respect to Kevin, I'm no fan of flame wars, but bring it on if you just gotta. But before you do, read his June 8 post and tell me that you agree with it, or you think it's funny, or that it could reasonably be construed as adult thinking.

Let's take the focus back to the issue at hand - Ann Coulter.

We can all bet she will answer the charges as she answered her felony charges with Alan Combes...

Ha ha, it's ironic that you dittoheads refer to "the loony left" when discussing the poster girl of right wing insanity. You guys are a riot.

Steve Huff dissesects it all here, her felony charges that it...

Given the left's track with crime (you know, where conservatives always get accused, but libs ACTUALLY commit them), I'll pass.
-=Mike

But Steve Huff is 15% Right of Center my friend...

Can you handle it?

Ann Ghoulter's hands are positively reptilian...

Don't take my silence to be assent, but I like Wizbang, and I don't want to overstay my welcome here. I suggest you do the same.

We're done here, folks.

Put plain, I was disgusted by the vileness and hypocrisy of his June 8 post.

Uh, yeah. Look, as Rude Pundit's blog clearly states, he is "Proudly lowering the level of political discourse." So describing him as vile and obnoxious is like complaining about McDonald's using a clown to sell hamburgers. It's a gimmick and it clearly works. We're writing about him while most people ignore my relatively insult-free blog; despite the fact that I'm the smartest person in the world and my blog clearly reflects that fact.

And where is the hypocrisy? I took your advice and read the June 8 post, and while it is vile and obnoxious and not particularly enlightening, I'm missing the hypocrisy. He's as rude as he says he is, and doesn't pretend to be anything different. Nor does he attack Coulter for being rude. He attacks her for saying stupidly crazy things to sell books and denounces her for stealing other people's words without attribution. And does he pretend to be above all this? No, he says "Sometimes you gotta jump in the gutter and have the slap fight with the wh*res."

So where exactly is the hypocrisy? He does exactly as he says he does and wallows in the fact. And again, as a marketing technique, it's far better than my schtick. He probably gets more readers in a day than I get in a month. Additionally, you called him a "maroon" but failed to mention what was so maroonish about him. So far, the only accusation you made that sticks is the one that he clearly is proud of.

Oddly enough, your point seems to be that Wizbang shouldn't have mentioned him, because he is normally so rude. Which is typical of conservatives, who believe that denouncing a source is the equivalent of denouncing what that source says. As if the messege is only as good as the messenger delivering it. So if Rude Pundit is normally excessively rude, then we don't need to consider his accusations of plagiarism. Right.

As for "flame wars" I don't really know what you're talking about. I haven't flamed you at all. I haven't even insulted you. But then again, I'm arguing with someone who actually mentions Ward Churchill; an act reserved for liberal-bashers who are desperate to find evidence of anti-Americanism in liberals. As if this unknown professor is somehow our ideological leader. Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh make millions feeding rightwingers their own feel-good anti-lib horse dooky back to them, and you guys scour to find this one loser professor that most liberals denounced and/or laughed at.

Remember: You guys made Ward Churchill famous, not us. You pretend he represents our movement, but are desperate to find anyone like him. There are millions and millions of liberals, and you guys still mention Ward Churchill. Pathetic.

Ah, the wasted energy. Liberals obsess with a sweet thing like Ann Coulter when they could be pitching in to solve the world's problems. Don't they know that the stock market is down?

My original comment to you was based on the apparent fact that you hadn't read the article in question. Sorry to point it out, but you just confirmed it. I don't think badly of you for it.

The Rude Pundit certainly succeeded in achieving his goal. I think we're all agreed that "obnoxious" is accurate. And it looks like we've pretty well covered the "vile" part as well.

The "hypocrisy" I referred to was his revelation that Coulter was shrill and rude, when the tone of the very same article went way beyond anything she has ever written. I may be the only guy on the planet that doesn't get the "schtick", who knows? But to me, the June 8 article went beyond the pale of adult...uh...intercourse. That's what I meant by hypocrisy.

"Maroon" was a reference to his apparent disconnect from the adult world, as in "Robinson Crusoe". Ben Gunn. Or, Bugs Bunny, if you prefer. Same-same. Adults don't talk that way.

It's not up to me to decide what Kevin posts here. We're both guests here. My comment was that the article Kevin quoted purported to be a serious article from a serious writer. An honest reading of the June 8 article takes you to a completely different conclusion, and I stand by that.

You're right. I do actually mention the good Professor -- because he still has a job. Point of fact, it was a peer review committee at his own university that judged him a plagiarist.

And I don't know how "desperate" I am to find anyone else like him. I'm not even looking. I simply regret that he's still teaching and still has tenure, but that's the way universities work. I can't change that, but I can regret it.

Speaking of jobs, I've got one I have to get back to. Nice chatting with you. Very stimulating.

Make that "Treasure Island", Friday.

Whatever the outcome of this, Coulter's popularity amongst rightwing Americans is good news for the Republican GLBT community. Who'da thought the most visible face of Conservative hatred would be a woman with an Adam's apple?

Ann Who?

Charges, felonies, suits...

Of course, of course. And if I am not mistaken, I believe it was Abraham Lincoln that first used the word "Godless" in an inaugral address. I think. Anyway, time's wasting, we'd better have some nation-saving lefty get nose-down on the plagerism trail -- before it's too late!

And before legal Twister goes full throttle, can I criticize Saddam for his actions? I mean, he did lose a couple "Baghdad Boys" in a deliberate attack.

I didn't plagerize with "Baghdad Boys". I swear.

You conservative wing-nuts see today's Rude Pundit. There's more plagiarism from Mr. Coulter. And yes, it's Mr. Coulter. That's a trannie. The adam's apple is a dead giveaway.

"We're done here, folks."

Really? Unable to make a judgement on whether two paragraphs are 99% identical? Stuck with changing the subject and empty ad hominems? Ah well. It's hard not to conclude that some people would give Ann Coulter a pass if she broke into their house and left a puddle of pee on the rug.

No, ahem, I have a job and had to leave. You had nothing to do with it. Sorry.

But since you asked, I did reply at the time that I didn't care. I was, and am, unconvinced that once sentence proves anything. The second sentence is nothng in a legal sense. I also volunteered that probably nobody else cared either. If it does turn out that Coulter committed plagiarism, the grown-ups will figure it out, not you and your wishful thinking.

I also volunteered that I'm not one of her acolytes, and I turn away from her sometimes. I'm not defending Coulter, I'm playing with trolls apparently.

I liked your "Nothing but ad hominem attacks...and you're icky" reply. Nice reasoning.

Responding to a similar post from the unfortunately named Mr. Ferguson, as long as I'm at it, I fail to see why Coulter's sexuality should be of any more interest here than your own. You keep bringing it up like it ought to be on CNN as a Breaking Story, but who cares? A person's private sex life is just that: private. It's also irrelevant in this discussion. Besides, Rude Pundit has already declared her heterosexual on an industrial level. Get your story straight, boys.

You guys are a hoot. Greetings to all in your dimension. I've got a puddle of pee to clean up.

"but who cares? A person's private sex life is just that: private."

Exactly. So, why is this such a hard concept for your party to understand?

Question/statement:

Neo-cons like Coulter; only the privledged have the option of choosing such a stance?

I would say so.

"But since you asked, I did reply at the time that I didn't care."

My point is proven. Thanks.

The Apostle John stated that God is love (1 John 4:8,16). It is odd, then, that a book full of hateful and demeaning invective should point to others as being godless. More distressing than one venom-spewing individual is the gleeful chorus happy to share in disrespectful characterizations of their fellow Americans. It saddens me that any book, liberal or conservative, should attack and demean whole groups. Our world would be better if we all made a greater attempt to understand and fully appreciate other people's points of view.

"Zarqawi dead."
But he would not have come to power in the first place if we had not reverse engineered a war in Iraq.
"Rove not indicted."
As opposed to Libby, Duke Cunningham, Delay, Abramoff ad nauseum...yes, a real win for the Bush administration.
"Joe Wilson proven a liar (again)."
Right, does that somehow erase the fact that undercover agents were compromised, regardless of the how and why?
"Haditha "massacre" story crumbling."
Unfortunately, it is not. I wish that one was true. Several buddies in the service have shared stories that belie the real situation over there: unprepared, understaffed is just the beginning of it.
"Kerry re-hash of his "service" re-fisked."
So it would have been safer to not serve in the military, then there would be no service to 'frisk'?
"Pat Kennedy guilty of DUI."
Yes, a drunk Irishman. Shocker. And so relevant to people being beheaded.
"Bush surprise visit in Iraq."
The last flailings of a drowning puppet? ;)

We should all be working together, rather than pull each other down. You can attack the extremists on both sides, or you can focus on productive action.

If you can't think of a way to cogently respond to a grieving widow demanding an end to a war you believe is just and necessary, that says a lot more about your stupidity than it does about the "infallibility" of the widow or the Democrats you claim have propped her up.

Although I abhor Ann O'Recksick Ghoulter, in all fairness I must point out that her apparently enlarged adam's apple is probably an enlarged thyroid gland (which lies just below the place where the addam's apple is situated), a kind of small goitre. Indeed, she does display all the symptoms of hyperthyroidism which changes the character of people, making them agressive, nasty, unpleasant, hyperactive, excitable, very thin, and sometimes gives them exophtalmia which makes their eyes look very large. She might even have a full-blown Graves Disease. Just being fair and balanced.

I don't think the media ought to ignore her, after all, she is the poster-child for Republicanism (or should one say the poster-ho?), so the more this horror is bandied about and praised by the right-wing, the more their reputation is sullied, the less they will be elected.

Before you accuse a person of spewing hatered,just listen to yourself. Get over loosing the first and second elections,and stop being cry babies,we are tired of hearing your whining because things don't go your way....

Uh. What does election fraud have to do with Ann Coulter being a psychohosebeast?

You are all cracked out, militia loving, cousin fucking retards. Do something with yourself besides jerking off to pictures of Ann Coulter. There are multiple other examples of her plagarizing. It's cut and dry and it's wrong. Good luck trying to spin your way out of this one.

If Coulter is indeed proven to having plagarized material, she should be denounced for it. It is unacceptable, and yes, her career would be over and rightly so... it's tantamount to stealing in the writing world.

Whether this is uncoveredy by the left, or the right (somehow doubtful), is the facts line up to prove plagarism, whether you are left or right shouldn't matter.

I do not care what any one else says about her, I do NOT think that Ms. Coulter IS an intellectually insane, hateful, lying, manipulative, destructive, nasty, and hard-up ho.

She merely behaves like one.

http:www.e-merges.com

Ann Coulter's science chapters are extremely bad, any high school student adhering to her science views would flunk. Either she is very stupid or she thinks her readers are stupid.

ejoy the reviews of her science:
part 1
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/coulter1.cfm
part 2
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/coulter2.cfm

As another very astute poster already pointed out, she clearly has Graves Disease.