Rook Di Goo<p>Ann Coulter's critics prefer to quote each other

IntellectuaConservative.com ^ | 26 August, 2003 | by Daniel Sargis

[dogbrain]

presently reading...

[.cnI redruM]

It's called an idiot loop. A bunch of massively over-credentialled meatheads quote one-another as subject matter experts. It's a self-selecting bull-**** elite.

No rational thought ever has to enter the idiot loop production cycle at any stage of product development. I think Dilbert did a cartoon on this once.

[mathluv]

I have listened to Treason twice. Now my daughter has it. I have the book, also, for the footnotes.

[ex-snook]

"Ann Coulter's critics prefer to quote each other rather than deal with the arguments contained in Treason. "

Sounds like Buchanan's critics. Probably left-wing whackos.

[Alouette]

Sullivan makes a better jilted suitor than serious writer.

Is he saying that Ann Coulter is so hot she can make a gay man go hetero?

[Havoc]

lol. Right on the money

[dogbrain]

(yes, but probably not speaking for himself...)

[MalcolmS]

I don't think the author is aware that Sullivan plays for the other team.

[dogbrain]

"I have listened to Treason twice...

Who's voice is on the tape?

(remember, there's no such thing as a stupid question...)

[BurkesLaw]

Here's a contrary view on Ann Coulter's latest efforts, from the soft right:

http://www.iconoclast.ca/NewPage11.asp

[mathluv]

Ann does it herself. Her wry wit really comes through!

(remember, there's no such thing as a stupid question...) I said this many times in my classroom.

[StriperSniper]

[dogbrain]

That's MUCH better than Horowitz's panic-attack inspired response.

[FreedomPoster]

I've read the book, and pretty much every bit of commentary and opinion posted here on Free Republic about it. About the only articles with specific criticisms were the ones from Horowitz and Rabinowitz. Both of those articles were picked apart here, and were shown to be full of inaccuracies. The articles from Liberal sources have pretty much all been straight-up smear pieces, with no redeeming societal value.

[Arrowhead1952]

Good thing he wasn’t writing about Living History...

Good thing he wasn’t writing about Lying History...

With each of Coulter’s books, it has been the same old story from the left. From her hundreds of endnotes, the critics always dredge up some obscure source that can find, at best, maybe five “questionable” references.

After reading "Treason", I see why the left cannot stand Ann.

We’ve had Presidents who weren’t that good under oath!

Slick Willie and Hitlery come to mind

[dogbrain]

It would be nice to critique Carville's book, or Joe Conason's book, or some other liberalidiot's work of fiction here on FR.

But I don't think I could get through 2 pages of something like that without retching...

[johnb838]

Canfield does what all the Coulter critics do -- they quote each other and refute no specifics.

Isn't that very close to her central thesis? That it is the same thing they do to McCarthy -- quote each other and refute no specifics.

[FreedomPoster]

You're so-called "soft right" looks like the left to me. That article was more of the same, with no hard information to back up accusations of McCarthy's supposed "witch hunt".

That one was picked apart here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/942409/posts

[FreedomPoster]

/You're /Your /

[Pyro7480]

You know the rule!