A Dysfunctional Democracy

[BigV]

UG, so you protest having

everything Ann Coulter says about them is true

attributed to you? Really the only possible omission would be the three words preceeding the quote, thus:

one suspects that everything Ann Coulter says about them is true

and their addition hardly lets you off the hook. You believe Ann Coulter's remarks are true or you suspect Ann Coulter's remarks are true. A difference of degree, not kind.

Calling her a liar because she didn't quote you entirely is completely off base. The rest of your sentence was justification for your position, which she captured succinctly. Methinks the nutjob doth protest too much. There are countless examples where quotes of less than a whole sentence do not constitute lying. This is just another one of them. Quit whining.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

I object to the shaving of the context, V. How was that unclear?

[Aliantha]

Well I think you've cleared it up now UG. It's all semantics anyway, so why not move along?

I mean really, does anyone here care whether you 'suspect' or 'believe' everything Anny Coulter says is true?

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Come to that, reckon I would.

It wouldn't be of much moment to anyone outside our borders, though.

How looooooong can we spin this thread out, like so many cyber-Norns?

[Aliantha]

It'll probably die a natural death now that you've reached the limits of banality in this one UG.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

It'll probably die a natural death now that you've reached the limits of banality in this one UG.

But it's not working! :p

Originally Posted by Hippikos

"It would be a much better country if women did not vote. That is simply a fact. In fact, in every presidential election since 1950 - except Goldwater in '64 - the Republican would have won, if only the men had voted." (A.Coulter 05/17/2003)

You agree with that, Professor UG?

Bear in mind Ann Coulter's style and method is very much that of the AM radio talk show host: devise a thesis phrased to rouse any rousable rabble. This does not of itself determine if the thesis is right or wrong; the point is to be provocative.

Your frustration count, Hipp, will go down dramatically once you quit trying to find evil in a place where there isn't any -- in the heart of Urbane Guerrilla. I know you desperately want to, but you'll have to get in line behind tw and maybe one or two more loonies, and I don't think they'd be disposed to leave any for you.

[Hippikos]

"It would be a much better country if women did not vote. That is simply a fact. In fact, in every presidential election since 1950 - except Goldwater in '64 - the Republican would have won, if only the men had voted." (A.Coulter 05/17/2003)

You agree with that, Professor UG?

[Flint]

I hardly ever quote entire posts. I quote the part I'm responding to. Posts can contain more than one point, and I'm keeping the ideas linear by quoting and responding to something specific. It's a courtesy to the reader, preventing them from having to sort through many extraneous lines of text to find the point that is being addressed. It also cleans up the visual appearance of the thread; how many times do we need to read the same post? The excerpt that I quote is sometimes just a cue as to which post I am responding to, maybe a slight reminder of what the content was, a representative part of a larger section. To me, it's all about keeping the thread clean, clear, and no longer than necessary. And, after all, the interested reader need only scroll up to read the whole post, if they are interested. In fact, now our quotes contain a link, so the complete text is only one click away!

My rules for quoting:

Any complete sentence can be quoted as is. Want more? See the original post.

..."snipped" sections are indicated by ellipsis... This prevents unnecessarily long re-posts.

The quote can contain bold text, to help indicate what is specifiaclly being responding to.

The goal should be clear and concise quotes, to facilitate the exchange of ideas. For any ethical questions that may arise, we are on the honor system.

[Aliantha]

well stop posting!

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Nnnnno!

[Oh fuck, I don't need any smiley!]

[Hippikos]

No frustration here, Professor, I leave that to you and Coulter. And I'm glad we identified her as a rabble rousing agent provocateur.

What bothers me the most about Ann is that she is an idiot that constantly contradicts herself from one interview to another... that anyone listens to her is a joke.

[Happy Monkey]

Nothing really bothers me about Coulter- she's just an attention-seeking nut. What bothers me is that "news" organizations give her the time of day.

Exactly. Well put.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

I read her anyway -- the people who cite her style as a reason to dismiss her are merely being defensive at being intellectually caught out.

That and she has the annoying habit of being right at least as often as any other columnist.