Plagiarism expert catches Coulter

[Waenara]

A previous thread from 2005 accused Ann Coulter of plaigiarizing a column, but it was locked after a few posts. The consensus seemed to be that the accusation was pretty weak.

However, this recent article makes many more accusations, that she's plaigiarized in her recent book, Godless: the Church of Liberalism, and also in various newspaper columns from the last year.

John Barrie, the creator of a leading plagiarism-recognition system, claimed he found at least three instances of what he calls "textbook plagiarism" in the leggy blond pundit's "Godless: the Church of Liberalism" after he ran the book's text through the company's digital iThenticate program.

He also says he discovered verbatim lifts in Coulter's weekly column, which is syndicated to more than 100 newspapers, including the Fort Lauderdale (Fla.) Sun-Sentinel and Augusta (Ga.) Chronicle.

"Just as Coulter plays free and loose with her citations in 'Godless,' she obviously does the same in her columns," Barrie said.

Coulter did not respond to requests for comment.

[Rhubarb]

The sobering implication is that this means there are other people out there like Ann, and they're being published!

[Waenara]

I just realized that my original link requires (free) to view the entire article.

Here are a few more articles on the some subject (not sure if any require registration):

Link 1
Link 2
Link 3
Link 4
Link 5

[Voyager]

Originally Posted by Rhubarb

The sobering implication is that this means there are other people out there like Ann, and they're being published!

It seems like she's stealing from her buddies.

But, I can understand. With so many babies hearts to cut out, how do you expect her to digest her sources and actually write original stuff? Give the bimbo a break, guys.

[Oakminster]

Originally Posted by Voyager

Give the bimbo a break, guys.

Well, she does have a nice rack, but that giraffe neck, the horse face, and the way-too-skinny body cancel the boobs out. Add in the personality and ideology, and I wouldn't hit it on a dare.

[Pullet]

What Oakminster said.

[Slithy Tove]

"leggy blonde pundit." Say it quickly three times without saying "plundit."

[astorian]

I'm not surprised- fact is, you could nail dozens of authors doing exactly the same thing.

Political columnists of all stripes are constantly reprinting large chunks of other people's work. It's the lazy columnist's way out.

A few equally lazy writers (Gary Wills on the Left and George Will on the right are the worst offenders) have an annoying habit of starting off a columns by saying:

****

As Professor Joseph Schmeaux says in his brilliant new book Brilliant New Book, "Yada yadda yadda...

(Continue quoting for 7 paragraphs)

... yadda yadda yadda"

I couldn't have said it better myself.

***

I haven't read Coulter's book, but I suspected it was a cut-and-paste job, like any of Michael Moore's. Apparently, skinny blondes are just as prone to laziness as fat nerds.

[you with the face]

Originally Posted by Oakminster

Well, she does have a nice rack, but that giraffe neck, the horse face...

You mean, whippet face.

[Squink]

Originally Posted by Oakminster

Well, she does have a nice rack,...

Plaigiarized from Britney Spears.

[Wendell Wagner]

astorian writes:

> A few equally lazy writers (Gary Wills on the Left and George Will on the right
> are the worst offenders) have an annoying habit of starting off a columns by
> saying:
>
> ****
>
> As Professor Joseph Schmeaux says in his brilliant new book Brilliant New
> Book, "Yada yadda yadda...
>
> (Continue quoting for 7 paragraphs)
>
> ... yadda yadda yadda"
>
> I couldn't have said it better myself.
>
> ***

Does Garry Wills really do this that much? I know his work pretty well. I'm currently working through the twenty-first book that I've read by him. I've read all his articles in _The New York Review of Books_ for over a decade now. I've just checked some online columns by him to refresh my memory, and he doesn't do seven-paragraph quotations that I've noticed. Yes, often he starts a column by quoting one sentence from an author, particularly a classical Greek or Roman author or an early Christian writer. His columns often start out by sounding like meditations on single sentences from older authors, but they usually drop that format and become fairly standard comment and discussion of an issue. Garry Wills tends to have read everything on a subject he's discussing, so it's not surprising that he feels has to mention that some other author has distilled the issue to one sentence already.

This isn't at all comparable to an author who plagiarizes material from other authors. I haven't looked at the evidence of whether Coulter has done any plagiarism and can't speak to it, but plagiarism doesn't include acknowledged quoting of other authors. You may have some case to make that some lazy columnists stretch out their columns with acknowledged quotations from other authors, but you'd have to make that a separate accusation, since it's quite a different thing from plagiarizing the other author.

[ddgryphon]

Originally Posted by you with the face

You mean, whippet face.

Oh, my goodness, she does look like a Whippet with long blonde hair and oversized boobs.

Well, I always thought she was a dog anyway.

[ddgryphon]

I'm not particularly interested in defending Coulter as, in general, I don't think much of her as a person, or as a political anylist. However, this "plagerism" seems to me to be more a restatement of news facts than plagerizing other peoples' thoughts and claiming them as their own. Restating news facts is entirely different than claiming an analysis as your own. I will say that it is sloppy not to have cited the news sources, but this is hardly a smoking gun of plagerism.

Just like the Republicans trying to take down Clinton, find something real to charge the woman with, surely she's actually done something. Half-baked accusations aren't worth your time and she stands for a lot of onerous things, so talk about what she's really doing -- it's far worse than this.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Waenara

A previous thread from 2005 accused Ann Coulter of plaigiarizing a column, but it was locked after a few posts. The consensus seemed to be that the accusation was pretty weak.

However, this recent article makes many more accusations, that she's plaigiarized in her recent book, Godless: the Church of Liberalism, and also in various newspaper columns from the last year.

I would sure like to see the offending passages and their counterparts myself before reaching a judgement here.

The article doesn't quote any specifics -- it says, for example,

...that one 25-word passage from the "Godless" chapter titled "The Holiest Sacrament: Abortion" appears to have been lifted nearly word for word from Planned Parenthood literature published at least 18 months before Coulter's 281-page book was released.

But it doesn't give us the passage, or the specific Planned Parenthood literature in question. How am I supposed to verify this?

[Malacandra]

Originally Posted by astorian

I'm not surprised- fact is, you could nail dozens of authors doing exactly the same thing.

Political columnists of all stripes are constantly reprinting large chunks of other people's work. It's the lazy columnist's way out.

A few equally lazy writers (Gary Wills on the Left and George Will on the right are the worst offenders) have an annoying habit of starting off a columns by saying:

****

As Professor Joseph Schmeaux says in his brilliant new book Brilliant New Book, "Yada yadda yadda...

(Continue quoting for 7 paragraphs)

... yadda yadda yadda"

I couldn't have said it better myself.

***

This is exactly right.

[Bricker]

One of the additional links above offers the following as evidence of plagiarism:

Coulter: A few years after oil drilling began in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, a saboteur set off an explosion blowing a hole in the pipeline and releasing an estimated 550,000 gallons of oil.

The History Channel: The only major oil spill on land occurred when an unknown saboteur blew a hole in the pipe near Fairbanks, and 550,000 gallons of oil spilled onto the ground.

In my view, those two passages do not constitute any evidence of plagiarism. The link claims the use of the word 'saboteur' in both is "a bit too forced in this particular instance to be mere coincidence."

What?!?

[WhyNot]

Originally Posted by Bricker

What?!?

Indeed. If all of the examples are like that, then I'm afraid this case shows the flaws in the software, not the plagiarism of The Beast.

[Waenara]

Originally Posted by WhyNot

Indeed. If all of the examples are like that, then I'm afraid this case shows the flaws in the software, not the plagiarism of The Beast.

I think that was one of the weaker examples. Some other ones from the linked articles above:

Coulter: The massive Dickey-Lincoln Dam, a $227 million hydroelectric project proposed on upper St. John River in Maine, was halted by the discovery of the Furbish lousewort, a plant previously believed to be extinct.

Portland Press Herald: The massive Dickey-Lincoln Dam, a $227 million hydroelectric project proposed on upper St. John River, is halted by the discovery of the Furbish lousewort, a plant believed to be extinct.


From this link:

This time, Coulter is accused of borrowing liberally from a 1988 press conference led by at-the-time Republican Senate candidate Alan Keyes, helping to demonize furloughed murderer Willie Horton to help the senior President Bush beat off former Massachussetts Governor Michael Dukakis.

"Other murderers furloughed by Dukakis included Donald Robertson and Bradford Boyd. Robertson raped a ninety-three-year-old woman and her seventy-two-year-old daughter and then stamped on their chests so hard that he crushed their internal organs," Coulter wrote.

Excerpt from Keyes' October 27, 1988 press conference: "Donald Robertson raped a 93-year-old woman and her 72-year-old daughter. Okay? After he raped them, he kicked them and beat them so bad, he crushed their chests and the internal organs in their chests."

After presenting more examples from both texts, The Rude Pundit continues: "Not only does Coulter blatantly cut and paste the first part, she also presents the exact same information in the exact same order as Barnes did back in 1988, including many directly quoted phrases, without citing anywhere the source for the information. As if it just appeared out of thin air."

The blogger then shows how Coulter quotes Keyes on Horton, but without revealing to her readers that the press conference may have been the source for that entire section of the chapter.

"It would have been simple for Coulter to avoid even seeming like she plagiarized: a couple of quotation marks, one of those footnotes she's always bragging about," The Rude Pundit writes. "But she didn't."

It seems like Coulter's problem is a lack of attribution of sources and "restatement of news facts" (as one previous poster put it). However, it seems like she barely (if it all) restates the, and just quotes without attribution.

At this site it states that Coulter claims she made a list of diseases that have been treated with adult stem cells, but failed to attribute the list to an article by Planned Parenthood (that link includes the complete side-by-side comparison of their lists:

"In the August 24, 2004, New York Times, science writer Gina Kolata claimed that no one had succeeded in using adult stem cells 'to treat diseases,'" writes Coulter.

To prove the Times science writer wrong, Coulter then provides a "short list" of sixteen "successful treatments achieved by adult stem cell research."

But fifteen of Coulter's examples are nearly identical to a longer list of seventeen compiled by the Illinois Right To Life website, which has been available since at least September of 2003 (current link, archived 9/03 link).

Maybe not deliberate plaigiarism, but definitely sloppy work. From the articles in the OP

Meanwhile, many of the 344 citations Coulter includes in "Godless" "are very misleading," said Barrie, who holds a Ph.D. from the University of California at Berkeley, where he specialized in pattern recognition.

"They're used purely to try and give the book a higher level of credibility - as if it's an academic work. But her sloppiness in failing to properly attribute many other passages strips it of nearly all its academic merits," he told The Post.

So I think you can tell he probably isn't fond of Coulter and her work in general. Some people might try to attack his accusation that way (He just doesn't like Coulter!), but he does make a good point.

Originally Posted by astorian

I'm not surprised- fact is, you could nail dozens of authors doing exactly the same thing.

Political columnists of all stripes are constantly reprinting large chunks of other people's work. It's the lazy columnist's way out.

That definitely does happen, but if they're lazy enough to borrow a chunk of another writer's work, they should at least acknowledge that writer in the text, or a footnote/endnote.

[Otto]

Coulter did not respond to requests for comment.

She's waiting for someone to finish writing it.

[astorian]

Originally Posted by Wendell Wagner

astorian writes:

> A few equally lazy writers (Gary Wills on the Left and George Will on the right
> are the worst offenders) have an annoying habit of starting off a columns by
> saying:
>
> ****
>
> As Professor Joseph Schmeaux says in his brilliant new book Brilliant New
> Book, "Yada yadda yadda...
>
> (Continue quoting for 7 paragraphs)
>
> ... yadda yadda yadda"
>
> I couldn't have said it better myself.
>
> ***

Does Garry Wills really do this that much? I know his work pretty well. I'm currently working through the twenty-first book that I've read by him. I've read all his articles in _The New York Review of Books_ for over a decade now. I've just checked some online columns by him to refresh my memory, and he doesn't do seven-paragraph quotations that I've noticed. Yes, often he starts a column by quoting one sentence from an author, particularly a classical Greek or Roman author or an early Christian writer. His columns often start out by sounding like meditations on single sentences from older authors, but they usually drop that format and become fairly standard comment and discussion of an issue. Garry Wills tends to have read everything on a subject he's discussing, so it's not surprising that he feels has to mention that some other author has distilled the issue to one sentence already.

This isn't at all comparable to an author who plagiarizes material from other authors. I haven't looked at the evidence of whether Coulter has done any plagiarism and can't speak to it, but plagiarism doesn't include acknowledged quoting of other authors. You may have some case to make that some lazy columnists stretch out their columns with acknowledged quotations from other authors, but you'd have to make that a separate accusation, since it's quite a different thing from plagiarizing the other author.

Cripes, Wills and Will both do this all the time!

Once, Garry was trying (or THOUGHT he was trying) to write about racism, and he used up the entire column quoting from a Nero Wolfe mystery.

As for Will... he'll rehash some old, pointless, lengthy baseball anecdote and then slap a postcript at the end, as if his story had some sort of deep political implications.

[Larry Borgia]

After all the vile, indefensible shit that troll has said, plagarism seems pretty small beer.

[Squink]

Originally Posted by Larry Borgia

After all the vile, indefensible shit that troll has said, plagarism seems pretty small beer.

Whatever works is good enough. Still, I would like to see her nailed in that voting fraud thingy.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by ddgryphon

Restating news facts is entirely different than claiming an analysis as your own. I will say that it is sloppy not to have cited the news sources, but this is hardly a smoking gun of plagerism.

We're no doubt approaching the time when someone will post to this thread and say "plagiarism is just failure to re-word someone else's work," but as somebody who actually deals in news facts, I have to say you're wrong. Restating facts does not extend to quoting somebody else while failing to use quotation marks or mention that you didn't write the sentence. If I discover a fact, other people can use it, but that doesn't mean they can copy and paste paragraphs of my work into their own without mentioning me. It doesn't really matter if it's analysis or fact when you're talking about large chunks of recycled work. Did you see the hundreds of words they mentioned about David Souter, which Coulter used in the same order as someone else did 15 years earlier? That doesn't fit into any definition of "restating" that I can think of.

Originally Posted by Bricker

In my view, those two passages do not constitute any evidence of plagiarism. The link claims the use of the word 'saboteur' in both is "a bit too forced in this particular instance to be mere coincidence."

What?!?

What the original blog says, I think, is that it's ridiculous to think that Coulter would ever call somebody in that situation a saboteur instead of a terrorist. It's not the strongest part of the accusation, but he has a point.

[Wendell Wagner]

astorian writes:

> Once, Garry was trying (or THOUGHT he was trying) to write about racism, and
> he used up the entire column quoting from a Nero Wolfe mystery.

Cite? He certainly doesn't do this all the time. I've read a lot of Wills, and I don't recall him ever doing it.

[drachillix]

Originally Posted by Oakminster

Well, she does have a nice rack, but that giraffe neck, the horse face, and the way-too-skinny body cancel the boobs out. Add in the personality and ideology, and I wouldn't hit it on a dare.

I would but only to go to the national enquirer with "Coulter to have love child by liberal athiest" story....

That would have to be worth millions..

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

Originally Posted by drachillix

I would but only to go to the national enquirer with "Coulter to have love child by liberal athiest" story....

That would have to be worth millions..

Especially considering how unlikely it is that there's a womb and ovaries inside that person.

[if6was9]

Originally Posted by Bricker

I would sure like to see the offending passages and their counterparts myself before reaching a judgement here.

The article doesn't quote any specifics -- it says, for example,

But it doesn't give us the passage, or the specific Planned Parenthood literature in question. How am I supposed to verify this?

Oh good! Bricker's here! To tell us how she has a constitutionally protected right to say what she says...


Without ever once admitting what a worthless f**kwad she is.




Defending the scum of the Earth, even on strictly legal grounds, is NOT a noble profession. Sometimes you have to step back. See the forest for the trees.

:spit:

[Little Nemo]

It says a lot about the contents of Coulter's books that a valid charge of plagiarism would enhance her reputation and hurt the reputations of the original authors.

[iampunha]

Originally Posted by if6was9

Without ever once admitting what a worthless f**kwad she is.

By that measure, your scorn is hereby also conferred on:

Waenara
Rhubarb
Voyager
Oakminster
Pullet
Slithy Tove
astorian
EddyTeddyFreddy
drachillix
Marley23
Squink
Larry Borgia
Otto
WhyNot
Malacandra
ddgryphon
Squink
you with the face
Wendell Wagner

[SkipMagic]

An Ann Coulter thread not in the Pit? Well, almost all of 'em tend to end up there, anyway, so off this one goes.

[if6was9]

Originally Posted by iampunha

By that measure, your scorn is hereby also conferred on:

Waenara
Rhubarb
Voyager
Oakminster
Pullet
Slithy Tove
astorian
EddyTeddyFreddy
drachillix
Marley23
Squink
Larry Borgia
Otto
WhyNot
Malacandra
ddgryphon
Squink
you with the face
Wendell Wagner

You'd defend her too?

or are you just defending Mr. Technically He/She/They are legally within their rights, all morality aside...

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by iampunha

By that measure, your scorn is hereby also conferred on:

I beg your pardon, but I think I've once admitted that she's a worthless fuckwad.

[if6was9]

Originally Posted by SkipMagic

An Ann Coulter thread not in the Pit? Well, almost all of 'em tend to end up there, anyway, so off this one goes.

Why thank you, Skip!

I am just fucking sick of Bricker's trolling, morally-bereft posts! Yeah, he might come in here and debate this, and make me look like an ass. It doesn't change my opinion of his.... morally-neutered.... view of right and wrong. Somewhere, between law school, and his "career", he LOST SIGHT of anything that was once important.

Fuck Bricker, and fuck you too, puhna!

[Zebra]

Originally Posted by Larry Borgia

After all the vile, indefensible shit that troll has said, plagarism seems pretty small beer.

The put Capone away for tax evasion.

[Lute Skywatcher]

Originally Posted by Waenara

It seems like Coulter's problem is a lack of attribution of sources and "restatement of news facts" (as one previous poster put it). However, it seems like she barely (if it all) restates the, and just quotes without attribution.

Maybe not deliberate plaigiarism, but definitely sloppy work.

ISTR a thread about an organization (magazine?) that's declared not quoting without attribution and sloppy work to be plagiarism but I have no idea how to find it.

[if6was9]

Nm. I've been informed I'm WAY out of line. I apologize to Bricker. That was way out of line. Way above my comprehension even. Sorry and I'm out of here.

[iampunha]

Originally Posted by if6was9

You'd defend her too?

or are you just defending Mr. Technically He/She/They are legally within their rights, all morality aside...

Your display in this thread hasn't given me a sufficiently high opinion of you to say one way or the other. Furthermore, your inability to restrain yourself outside The Pit, especially given such a relatively trivial topic (assuming for the moment that you are not one of the women specifically targeted by Coulter in her recent publication) as Ann Coulter, speaks ill of your ability to remain rational.

I will, however, note this about your view of Bricker: I was a member of this board back in 2000, and have been reading Bricker's posts off and on for the better part of a decade now. He and I have certainly had stern and occasionally terse disagreements (as is the case with a number of other people, both for his part and for mine), but I don't recall ever having formed the opinion that his was a trolling or morally bereft position on any issue.

What does strike me right now, though, is that you are attacking him here for something I'm betting he said elsewhere. He has two posts in this thread, and neither make any mention of his vocation or the people he defends, let alone anything else. If you have an issue with Bricker specifically, perhaps you should put all your eggs in one basket, adage be damned, and leave this thread for those of us not wishing to discuss the merits and/or demerits of Bricket.

(Marley: I did a textsearch in this thread for fuckwad. Nothing turned up. Sorry for the oversight)

[iampunha]

Well fuck. My post is now sort of entirely pointless, I suppose. (Almost 15,000 of them, you'd think I'd get used to that sort of feeling.) If a mod figures it's worth deleting it, no skin off my nose. If not, no skin off anything else

[if6was9]

Originally Posted by iampunha

Your display in this thread hasn't given me a sufficiently high opinion of you to say one way or the other. Furthermore, your inability to restrain yourself outside The Pit, especially given such a relatively trivial topic (assuming for the moment that you are not one of the women specifically targeted by Coulter in her recent publication) as Ann Coulter, speaks ill of your ability to remain rational.

I will, however, note this about your view of Bricker: I was a member of this board back in 2000, and have been reading Bricker's posts off and on for the better part of a decade now. He and I have certainly had stern and occasionally terse disagreements (as is the case with a number of other people, both for his part and for mine), but I don't recall ever having formed the opinion that his was a trolling or morally bereft position on any issue.

What does strike me right now, though, is that you are attacking him here for something I'm betting he said elsewhere. He has two posts in this thread, and neither make any mention of his vocation or the people he defends, let alone anything else. If you have an issue with Bricker specifically, perhaps you should put all your eggs in one basket, adage be damned, and leave this thread for those of us not wishing to discuss the merits and/or demerits of Bricket.

(Marley: I did a textsearch in this thread for fuckwad. Nothing turned up. Sorry for the oversight)

Your cherry-picking a list of posters (strawman), junior modding, and calling me out as a n00b gives me a high opinion of you too.

[iampunha]

Originally Posted by if6was9

Your cherry-picking a list of posters (strawman), junior modding, and calling me out as a n00b gives me a high opinion of you too.

Cherry-picking? ... You wanna know how I assembled that list? I took down the names of each poster who had contributed to the thread before your post. If that's cherry-picking, I'd sure love someone pointing me to a dictionary showing the change the term has undergone since I last checked.

(Not even gonna dignify the rest of that.)

[if6was9]

Originally Posted by iampunha

Cherry-picking? ... You wanna know how I assembled that list? I took down the names of each poster who had contributed to the thread before your post. If that's cherry-picking, I'd sure love someone pointing me to a dictionary showing the change the term has undergone since I last checked.

(Not even gonna dignify the rest of that.)

Ok. Wrong term. And DUH! It was fucking obvious you went down the damn list! As if every one who posted in that thread is the DEFINITIVE list of Ann Coulter bashers on the Straight Dope. Again.... strawman! Is everyone who didn't call Miss Bitch MY EXACT WORDS ( fuckwad.) PROOF that I am picking on Bricker???? MY rant was (mis)directed at him. Why don't YOU fuck off? He can defend himself just fine thankyouverydamnmuchandfuckoff.

[Contrapuntal]

Originally Posted by iampunha

Cherry-picking? ... You wanna know how I assembled that list? I took down the names of each poster who had contributed to the thread before your post. If that's cherry-picking, I'd sure love someone pointing me to a dictionary showing the change the term has undergone since I last checked.

(Not even gonna dignify the rest of that.)

Well, you were cherry-picking the quotation. Who on your list was defending her constitutionally protected rights?

[Oakminster]

Originally Posted by iampunha

By that measure, your scorn is hereby also conferred on:

Waenara
Rhubarb
Voyager
Oakminster
Pullet
Slithy Tove
astorian
EddyTeddyFreddy
drachillix
Marley23
Squink
Larry Borgia
Otto
WhyNot
Malacandra
ddgryphon
Squink
you with the face
Wendell Wagner

Yay! I got named in a list of Dopers! Not sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing....

Do we get pie?

[Contrapuntal]

Originally Posted by Oakminster

Yay! I got named in a list of Dopers! Not sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing....

Do we get pie?

Das right. Cherry pie.

[Oakminster]

Yay for pie! (Chair boogie ensues)

[Malacandra]

Cherry pie is fine in its place.

In my completely original and unplagiarised opinion, that is just after a piece of chocolate cake, an ice-cream cone, a pickle, a slice of Swiss cheese, a slice of salami, and a lollipop; and just before a sausage, a cupcake and a slice of watermelon.

Mercifully I find myself in no need of an opinion about Ann Coulter

[Polycarp]

Originally Posted by Bricker

I would sure like to see the offending passages and their counterparts myself before reaching a judgement here.

The article doesn't quote any specifics -- it says, for example,

But it doesn't give us the passage, or the specific Planned Parenthood literature in question. How am I supposed to verify this?

No, Rick. My apologies, but it will not fly. And remember, I will defend the right of anybody to say anything.

This ... entity ... is on record in her book entitled Treason as saying: "All liberals and Democrats are guilty of actions tantamount to treason." (Close paraphrase; they didn't have a copy of Treason in the 10c bin at the rummage sale, and I would pay no more than that for it.)

Now, until and unless she produces clearcut proof, the sort that will stand up in a court of law under serious efforts to impugn it, that I and other Democrats and liberals have committed the constitutional definition of treason, she is a slanderous, libelous bitch who does not deserve your good offices. I will stand up for the right of a KKK member, a NAMBLA member, even Fred Phelps, to exercise their rights to freedom of speech, no matter how repulsive the content. With that accusation, though, la Coulter has just crossed the line for me.

(Her laudation of Tail Gunner Joe is either complete insanity or an effort to sell all the traffic will buy, too, but at least it's redeemed for me by leading me to discover America's most unlikely hero, Joseph Walsh.)

[ElvisL1ves]

Originally Posted by drachillix

I would but only to go to the national enquirer with "Coulter to have love child by liberal athiest" story....

That would have to be worth millions..

She dates Bill Maher. Could happen.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Polycarp

No, Rick. My apologies, but it will not fly. And remember, I will defend the right of anybody to say anything.

Um... Polycarp, I'm just talking about the accusation of plagiarism here. My post was not intended to be a general defense of her, merely a request for details on her supposed plagiarism.

[Steve MB]

Originally Posted by Waenara

At this site it states that Coulter claims she made a list of diseases that have been treated with adult stem cells, but failed to attribute the list to an article by Planned Parenthood

Plaigarism and concealment of the other side's honesty all in one sentence. How very efficient of her.