[conservatism_IS_compassion]

The Guardian's view on Ann's book is that her logic is "tendentious". After looking up the word, I agree.

I'm not sure you got the drift: if someone's logic is tendentious, they are trying to snow you. Do you agree that Coulter is trying to deceive the reader? I don't.

[Forgiven_Sinner]

"I'm not sure you got the drift: if someone's logic is tendentious, they are trying to snow you. Do you agree that Coulter is trying to deceive the reader? I don't."

Yes, I thought tendentious meant that; it's often used that way. But this is the definition, from post 18:

tendentious- Marked by a strong implicit point of view; partisan: a tendentious account of the recent elections.

Obviously Ann has a strong point of view--but she isn't trying to "snow" or fool anyone. She wouldn't generate 40 pages of footnotes if she were.

I detect a pattern among historians--they don't refute her, but condemn her for her style.

Of course, no one else refutes her either. I think she's getting though.