[ClearCase_guy]

Your post is not very clear. Are you saying that anyone who chooses to defend Ann Coulter, who provides extensive footnotes to all her statements of fact, somehow loses the right to point out dishonesty in others?

Care to back that up with something other than an ad hominem?

[Dave S]

Are you saying that anyone who chooses to defend Ann Coulter, who provides extensive footnotes to all her statements of fact, somehow loses the right to point out dishonesty in others? Care to back that up with something other than an ad hominem?

I think you understood me, although I dont think you lose the right to point out dishonesty in others. I just wish you would not be so quick to accuse others of it when Ann would lie through her teeth to make a point if she could. See takes an extreme position for shock value. She should have have been a schock jock.

Do I care to take ten hours of my time trying to prove it to you or anyone else who worships at Ann's croch, no. It would be a waste of my time. Anyone who purrs over every word from Ann is not open to discussion, just attack.

[tdunbar]

Whatever one makes of Rabinowitz's WSJ article,
it does make the way for a Coulter reply without
the WSJ having to directly solicit a Coulter op-ed.