Re: Ann Coulter is stunned!


Nashton wrote:
catshark wrote:
Nashton wrote:
catshark wrote:
Nashton wrote:
catshark wrote:
Nashton wrote:
catshark wrote:
Walter Bushell wrote:
In article <fc5ve2tfpaakh876ag120d5h4t3ibfu4un@xxxxxxx>,
catshark <catshark@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Ann Coulter is stunned!

No, Tasers don't explain those books of hers . . . it seems that she is
flabbergasted that she could go through 12 years of public school, then
college and law school, and still not know that it was Charles Darwin's
theory of evolution that fueled Hitler's ovens.
What a disappointment. I thought someone had tazered her, or hit her in
the head with a blunt instrument.
I know what you mean. I'm hardly a violent person but the exception
truly does prove the rule. When I <cough> did a version of this for my
blog

<http://dododreams.blogspot.com/2006/08/not-enough-not-by-long-shot_25.html>

I entitled it "Not Enough . . . Not By a Long Shot!".

Should you go there, though, you'll see a little assault and battery by
photoshop.

[sig snip]

You sound like a couple of bored housewives, gossiping and trashing
another individual for her ideas and books.
Well, I know she has books, but what *ideas* does she have . . . that
is, ones she hasn't aped from someone else? All I've seen from her is
style over substance; puerile arguments made "interesting" only by the
macho pose that excites some males enough to separate them from the
price of a book. Personally, I think they'd be better off buying a
vibrator.
Examples.
<http://tinyurl.com/p2se6>

Oh, you meant of her poor arguments. Then look here:

<http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2006/07/10/behold_for_i_am_the_giant_flat.php>
<http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/06/ann_coulter_no_evidence_for_ev.php>
<http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/06/anne_coulter_cl_1.html>
<http://mediamatters.org/items/200607070010>

That'll do for a start. Now, *your* turn! What original cogent ideas
has she had?

If they have anything to do with the alleged connection between Darwin
and Hitler, that would be a bonus.

[...]

Can you think for yourself?

You asked for examples of her poor reasoning and I gave you plenty. Why
reinvent the wheel? It's not like they'll change character if I spend a
lot of time taking her crap apart myself and typing it in here. And it
isn't like you are going to make any substantive response defending her
"logic" if I did do that. If that was the case, you could have started
already on those links. But then *you* would have to say something
substansive, which you seem allergic to.

How about exposing your own arguments?

Assuming you mean expressing my own opinions and making my own
arguments so everyone to see and criticize, I have. A fair amount, in
fact:

<http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/metaphors/>
<http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html>
<http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/feb04.html>
<http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/jan06.html>
<http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind.html>
<http://dododreams.blogspot.com/>

Where's *your* body of exposed arguments?

Heck, I'd settle for your just coming up with a set of Coulter's ideas
that you find to be original and cogent and defending your position.

I'll wait.

[...]


You have no arguments.

That's very amusing. I started this thread with an argument, though
couched in humorous terms, that anyone can make a "case" that just
about anyone and anything can be blamed for the Holocaust. Since then
you have resolutely refused to adress this issue. Or, as far as I can
tell, any other substansive issue during your time in t.o. You are the
proverbial empty sleeve pointing but without a point.

You're simply ruminating whatever you can c&p on
the Internet.

Since much, if not most, of what goes on in the world is now reported
on the web, if you don't ruminate about what is there, that is an
admission that that you don't think at all. I can't say that would
surprise me about you, given your inability to take a position and
defend it, but I'm rather surprised that you would want to keep
demonstrating it to others over and over.


That much is clear.

Nicky, since you have never been clear about anything, your opinion in
that regard is less than persuasive.

--
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------

The difference between genius and stupidity
is that genius has its limits.

- Albert Einstein -

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Out-of-print math books: An Update
    ... That someone else might have a notion of "substance" ... Had action indistinguishable from a grand piano. ... gave you several _real and serious_ reasons to prefer books. ... you enjoyed the life of research. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Excerpt from Erec Rex: The Monsters of Otherness
    ... Not his spam, his publicist's spam. ... _Anything_ but defending it. ... Not that I've ever seen books by any of them. ... cubomedusae can't kneel at all so there's no way to kneel AFTER me.) ...
    (rec.arts.sf.composition)
  • Re: Ann Coulter is stunned!
    ... catshark wrote: ... Tasers don't explain those books of hers. ... style over substance; puerile arguments made "interesting" only by the ... So God is totally out of the picture, and humans are the accidental product of a purposeless universe. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: OSC and TOR
    ... Not buying his books. ... *all* Tor books until they drop Card. ... Then you'd be defending someone who would use (or at least ... you disagree with his personal religious agenda. ...
    (rec.arts.sf.written)
  • Re: Ann Coulter is stunned!
    ... Nashton schreef: ... Tasers don't explain those books of hers. ... style over substance; puerile arguments made "interesting" only by the ... isn't like you are going to make any substantive response defending her ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading