[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.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

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.

I have no problem at all if you say that Coulter has a strong point of view; those who do not, simply don't understand the situation.

But the "implicit" part of the definition goes to the point that a "tendentious argument" always is concealing its agenda. Just like The New York Times would have you think that it's a bastion of nothing-but-the-facts truthtelling when in fact its "facts"--lately is some disrepute--have been carefully selected to avoid helping Republicans with too much inconvenient truth.

The article could have said "opinionated", and gotten away with it. But "tendentious" is always a perjorative.