|
Author
|
Topic: Critique of Ann Coulter's The Church of Liberalism: Godless
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1364 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
Re: Let's try this again
otherwise, its pointless to talk to people who have formulated their opinions of her based on what a liberal pundit claimed. i formulate my opinion of ann coulter based on what ann coulter says. (and actually, i think she's pretty funny)
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 107 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-17-2006 12:08 PM | | Hyroglyphx has not replied |
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1364 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
Re: Let's try this again
*shrug* i really, honestly think she's funny. but probably not in the way she's trying to be.
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 118 by ReverendDG, posted 07-18-2006 4:48 PM | | arachnophilia has not replied |
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1364 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
Re: Is ignorance bliss?
I'm half tempted to try and read up some of her stuff to see if she's as great as NJ says or as bad as most of the rest of you say. don't, it'll just make you angry. and then she's won.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 116 by MangyTiger, posted 07-18-2006 2:55 PM | | MangyTiger has not replied |
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1364 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
Re: Let's try this again
it's not like the classes are hard. yeah. it's not like pottery or anything.
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1364 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
|
Message 147 of 298 (333135)
07-18-2006 10:38 PM
|
Reply to: Message 145 by crashfrog
07-18-2006 10:24 PM
|
|
Re: Let's try this again
Look. There are people who mock conservative pundits by taking on the role of one. Steven Colbert is one such example. Do you watch his show, at all? That's satire. Coulter? She's serious. She's earnest. There's absolutely no satire there. shhh, you're distracting me from laughing at how ridiculous she is.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 145 by crashfrog, posted 07-18-2006 10:24 PM | | crashfrog has not replied |
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1364 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
Re: Let's try this again
ok, i know it took a little backtracking -- but seriously, did you not know those were links to individual articles, and copy/paste removed the formatting and this the links? here is the article WITH the formatting preserved, which i personally altered by hand to be compatible with the board:
quote:
All Coulter Plagiarism Allegations in One Post (Bumped Up For Your Weekend Reading Pleasure): Update: The biggest problem with nearly all of the denials of the plagiarism charges against Coulter is that those doing the denying (including Crown Publishing) are basing their assessments on the examples from the New York Post article alone. It's actually a great deal more than what John Barrie's software disovered. To wit: From the Rude Pundit:
July 1, 2005 - on Coulter plagiarizing descriptions of NEA-funded art.
June 9, 2006 - on Coulter plagiarizing in the first chapter of Godless.
June 13, 2006 - on Coulter plagiarizing part of a 60 Minutes transcript.
June 14, 2006 - on Coulter plagiarizing while discussing the Willie Horton case. June 14, 2006 - on Coulter plagiarizing on page 37 of Godless. From Raw Story:
July 20, 2005 - Following up on NEA-funded art description plagiarism. June 14, 2006 - on Coulter plagiarizing a list of adult stem cell treatments. From the New York Post:
July 2, 2006 - Reporter Philip Recchia gets John Barrie to run Coulter's book through Barrie's plagiarism identifying software, confirming some of the Rude Pundit's findings and discovering more examples. From Media Matters:
July 6, 2006 - follows up on the Post article and the Rude Pundit's work. That's where we stand. Is it enough to get Coulter's book recalled and her column cancelled? We shall see. // posted by Rude One @ 1:38 AM
please click the links, and read them, for the specifics. i'm not going to re-post every single one of their articles. i know we're not supposed to argue with links here, but really. just go and read them.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 142 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-18-2006 10:09 PM | | Hyroglyphx has not replied |
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1364 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
Re: Let's try this again
I went to Rude Pundit and you just copy and pasted what I already addressed. It gives no specifics whatsoever. it does, that's an index of blog entries. the index contains no specifics, the entries it refers do. with quotes, and sources.
No, it doesn't. Here are the links. Ot of three of the four, they're broken and the last one is irrelevant. no, the links that ARE the dates. see my post above.
Your link was bare and gave no specifics for how or where to referrence any of the claims it made. And being that the same information you gave me is being parroted on other leftist blogs, it gives me no basis to do any homework of any kind. I'd like nothing more than to investigate the matter, but I have nowhere to start! start at one of the links i already gave you. the case they make is fairly convincing -- they present the quotes from the book, and the source. and i happen to understand what plagiarism is in an academic context (ie: what will get me booted from class with an immediate F). i know the conservative blogs are mainly screaming that "minimal matching of words" isn't plagiarism, and "there are only so many ways you can present a fact." but after a certain point, "coincidence" is just not good enough as an explanation. in college, when you use someone else's idea without creditting them, it's plagiarism even if you reword everything completely. and yes, people DO get in trouble for not creditting their sources and backing up their arguments. also understand that published books are held to a higher standard than message board posts, tv appearances, etc.
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1364 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
stem cell plagiarism
ok, one at a time then.
Naturally, every one the claims that comes from Coulter are predominantly backed up by Michael Fumento. There is no plagiarism, I have the book in my lap as we speak reading the index. but not the source it's been shown they were taken from?
quote:
In an endnote, Coulter indicates that the information on her list was taken from the work of fellow Townhall contributor and author Michael Fumento, and provides a link to a page of his website devoted to articles he wrote on "understanding stem cells." A RAW STORY examination of the numerous articles by Fumento linked at the address provided by Coulter found no comparable list. Articles by Fumento that did contain lists of adult stem cell "breakthroughs" (articles from 2001, and 2004,) employed far different language. Raw Story - Celebrating 18 Years of Independent Journalism - 404 Not Found
it nearly matches word for word the illinios website:
quote:
Illinois Right To Life: Spinal cord injury repair (using stem cells from nasal and sinus regions) Coulter: Repairing spinal cord injuries by using stem cells from nasal and sinus regions. Illinois Right To Life: Complete reversal of juvenile diabetes in mice using adult spleen cells Coulter: Completely reversing Type 1 diabetes in mice using adult spleen cells Illinois Right To Life: Crohn’s Disease put into remission (using patient’s blood stem cells) Coulter: Putting Crohn's disease into remission with the patient's own blood stem cells Illinois Right To Life: Lupus put into remission (using stem cells from patient’s bloodstream) Coulter: Putting lupus into remission using stem cells from the patient's bloodstream Illinois Right To Life: Repair heart muscle in cases of congestive heart failure (using stem cells from bone marrow) Coulter: Repairing the heart muscles in patients with congestive heart failure using adult stem cells from bone marrow. Illinois Right To Life: Repair heart attack damage (using the patient’s own blood stem cells) Coulter: Repairing heart attack damage with the patient’s own blood stem cells Illinois Right To Life: Restore bone marrow in cancer patients (using stem cells from umbilical cord blood) Coulter: Restoring bone marrow in cancer patients using stem cells from umbilical cord blood. Illinois Right To Life: Restore weak heart muscles (using immature skeletal muscle cells) Coulter: Restoring weak heart muscles using immature skeletal muscle cells Illinois Right To Life: Put leukemia into remission (using umbilical cord blood) Coulter: Putting leukemia into remission using umbilical cord blood Illinois Right To Life: Heal bone fractures (using bone marrow cells) Coulter: Healing bone fractures with bone marrow cells. Illinois Right To Life: Restore a blind man’s sight (using an ocular surface stem-cell transplant & a cornea transplant) Coulter: Restoring sight in blind people using an ocular surface stem-cell transplant and a cornea transplant Illinois Right To Life: Treat urinary incontinence (using under arm muscle stem cells) Coulter: Treating urinary incontinence using stem cells from underarm muscle Illinois Right To Life: Reverse severe combined immunodeficiency (SCID) (using genetically modified adult stem cells) Coulter: Reversing severe combined immunodeficiency (SCID) with genetically modified adult cells. Illinois Right To Life: Restore blood circulation in legs (using bone marrow stem cells) Coulter: Restoring blood circulation in legs with bone marrow stem cells. Illinois Right To Life: Treat sickle-cell anemia (using stem cells from unbilical cord blood) Coulter: Treating sickle-cell anemia using stem cells from umbilical cord blood. (ibid)
coulter's list bears no similarity to fumento's articles. she credits fumento, and does not credit the place she very obviously lifted nearly every word from. maybe it's just an oversight, but it's still plagiarism. and if they're all oversight, then it's darned sloppy writing. Edited by arachnophilia, : subtitle, left out a citation rather ironically
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1364 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
Re: Let's try this again
if you do paraphrase something YOU STILL HAVE TO CITE IT. even if you already cite it elsewhere. between these two factors, this is the number one way students get tossed from college classes.
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1364 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
|
|
Message 172 of 298 (333572)
07-19-2006 11:47 PM
|
Reply to: Message 169 by nator
07-19-2006 6:50 PM
|
|
Re: Satire
That's what Stephen Colbert does. Everybody knows that Colbert isn't really a right-wing pundit. In fact, he's quite liberal, yet he portrays a very conservative right wing pundit on The Colbert Report in order to make fun of the policies and major players on the conservative right. He has often stated that one of the people he has modeled his character after is Bill O'Reilly, for example. the part that really gets me about colbert is that sometimes he'll be debating a scientist or left-winger on his show, and he'll just totally pwn them. i find it amazing that he can make extreme right arguments better than the people really on the right, and make them make sense and sound convincing. sometimes i'm just dumbfounded at how quick this guy is and how sharp his devil's advocate arguments are.
If Coulter were to actually be engaging in satire to make fun of the left, she would have to portray a far-left pundit, and pretend to espouse a far left position. So, she isn't using satire. i believe the word he's looking for is "strawman" not "satire." coulter regularly exagerates the opponent's position to ridicule it. while i suppose that MIGHT be a vague and small form of satire, on whole, no she does not satirize the left at any length or depth.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 169 by nator, posted 07-19-2006 6:50 PM | | nator has not replied |
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1364 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
Re: stem cell plagiarism
But all of the compilation of works for the Illinoisrighttolife derive from Fumento's work and Hankook Ilbo, which Coulter cited. coulter's words match the illinois right to life site, and NOT fumento. if you get the data from somewhere, and they got the data from somewhere, you cite the source you actually got it from. it's better to get something from the original source -- but that doesn't involved copying the secondary source nearly word for word and creditting the original source. especially when it's been demonstrated that not all the data came from that original source. if you got the data through a direct quote in the secondary material, you attribute it to the original source, but say "quote in ____" and the source you actually got it from. but the issue is that where the words came from and the source she cites do not match. that is plagiarism. and they tell you this sort of thing in any basic college writing class. if you do that in a college like cornell -- the one coulter attended -- you'd get thrown out of your class with an immediate f.
Far be it from me to point out the obvious, but this quibbling is much-ado-about-nothing in a presumed attempt to detract from the actual points of the argument - which is Adult Stem Cells have yielded far more benefits than that of Fetal Stem Cells. In other words, abortion isn't somehow justified over Fetal Stem Cells. this is not about the argument. this a critique of her book. and "parts of it are plagiarized" is a valid critique. coulter is simply guilty of intellectual dishonesty, whether she is right or wrong. and yes -- i did apply the same standard to michael moore. you'll find that i have also argued that he is intellectually dishonest as well, because he also misrepresents sources. Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 163 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-19-2006 12:49 PM | | Hyroglyphx has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 178 by nator, posted 07-20-2006 6:47 AM | | arachnophilia has not replied |
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1364 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
Re: Let's try this again
well, that wouldn't happen if she had any thighs. seriously ann, eat something. we bleeding heart liberals are starting to worry about you.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 159 by Nighttrain, posted 07-19-2006 9:15 AM | | Nighttrain has not replied |
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1364 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
Re: Let's try this again
yep. parentheticals aren't hard. neither are footnotes. maybe she just has a problem with parentheses? afterall, she did remove them from the bit she plagiarized from the illinois right to life website...
|
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1364 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: 05-21-2004
|
|
|
Message 201 of 298 (338736)
08-09-2006 2:53 PM
|
Reply to: Message 200 by clpMINI
08-09-2006 1:36 PM
|
|
Re: song about Coulter
There is a song by Hamell on Trail called "Coulter's Snatch" I think you like it. i don't see how anyone could like coulter's snatch.
also, army of darkness rules
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 200 by clpMINI, posted 08-09-2006 1:36 PM | | clpMINI has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 202 by clpMINI, posted 08-09-2006 3:44 PM | | arachnophilia has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2