Talk:Ann Coulter/Archive 7

message: Is the POV question whether Coulter uses insult at all or weather she uses insult heavily?
--71.112.11.220 04:19, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You will need to cite sources for anything that is so obviously going to get disputed as her use of insults. Find someone to quote and quote them. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:04, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

text: In other words,  the POV question is whether she uses insult at all?   I was thinking more of her insults toward Canada, this was the first article to come back from google.  --155.91.19.73 22:54, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no one to quote in that article RE her propensity to use insults. Hipocrite - «Talk» 23:35, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Insults 

message: Here's how I re-worded the Bill Maher piece:
Coulter has appeared several times on Bill Maher's cancelled program "Politically Incorrect". Maher has referred to her as "a friend of mine" yet often ganged up on her with other liberals when the conversation turned serious.  While on the show she has been deliberately provocative, comparing, for example, actor Richard Belzer to Osama Bin Laden and saying the constitutional amendment giving women the right to vote should be repealed.
It's better because it eliminated the cheezy 'pretend sex' line that's useless and only feeds the ann-haters already frenzied antipathy (see above for a user comment that illustrates this perfectly.) Plus it ADDS useful, and relevant info regarding one of the reasons why Ann became such a darling of the right - Her ability to withstand <I>withering </i>attacks from Maher and 3 other liberal guests (Ann being the token conservative) on a regular basis before a national audience.Big Daddy 09:24, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: yet often ganged up on her with other liberals when the conversation turned serious - that's neutral language?  I think not.  Guettarda 14:00, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Good edit.  If someone wants it back, they can quote her, and provide an intelligent, well-written context for her remark.  In its current state, it was a thoughtless, stupid blunder.   paul klenk talk 15:14, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Paul writes - ":Good edit." Why, thank you. Very much.Big Daddy 15:17, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

text: It was only "cheezy" because someone put "pretend" in front of "sexual relations".   I fixed it up.   And...not to accuse yall of anything...but its a little suspicious when you never disagree on anything.... --69.110.37.143 21:12, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you only knew, which you clearly don't.  Not to accuse y'all of anything, but coming from an anonymous person with no edit history whatsoever, your statement is more than a little suspicious.  Why don't you go edit the Al Qaeda page?   paul klenk talk 22:31, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

text:  Last time I checked, removing "pretend" is not a terrorist act.  Don't forget the wiki policies, Paul   --69.110.51.207 03:21, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bill Maher 

message: She can be but I'm gonna take out the quote from the very first paragraph because it's misleading. First of all, the Ann-haters apparently can't get enough of this quote. It's used TWICE in this article. That's wrong to begin with. Secondly the only readers who are alleged to find her 'shrill etc' are those from that Arizona paper and we have only the words of it's editor to back this charge up. (Not that we couldn't find others who agree! :) In conclusion, if you want to include it, use it only once  and in relation to her being unfairly censored by that Arizona paper. Big Daddy 19:16, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The editor said "many readers", not "many readers from Arizona".   Changing this is a misquote.   As he is not making an accusation against Ann, this is no allegation -- its a cited fact.  --155.91.19.73 00:05, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sources make the intro look bad and this problem is why. He can add context without misquoting (quite the opposite!), and what you suggest he would do is not what he proposed. Plus if we keep it then we now need two pro-Ann references in the intro to make it neutral.  64.140.89.34 02:14, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

text: hah.  no one alleged readers around the world wrote the arizona republic, but it's a misquote to say the readers were *only* in arizona.   i'd bet good frozen chicken that readers around the world DO think she is shrill (peeps in olympia, washintgon, ann arbor, and the greater eastern and southern hemispheres, in any case) but that would require some original research to prove and would be deleted immediately.   so i guess all that makes sense is stickin with the quote --71.112.11.220 06:27, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  A bunch of numbers wrote -"I'd bet good frozen chicken that readers around the world DO think she is shrill." Well, you'd probably be knee deep in frozen chickens then as that bet is a sure winner. Of course, I'd bet a year's full of weekend dinners at The Tribute that I could find readers saying all that and a lot worse about Al Franken etc. The question is, can you back it up? And a quote from the editor of the Arizona Daily Star,  one of FORTY newspapers in Arizona and two in Tuscon, doesn't qualify as a back up. So my guess is that, in the absence of supporting evidence, the quote gets cut out. And even with back up evidence, it's appropriateness at the beginning of the article is suspect. Big Daddy 06:49, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The quote is intact and cited, doesn't need any more support than that, does it?   Did anyone do a nationwide study to determine she's sarcastic?  --155.91.19.73 21:47, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ann is shrill?