Coulter Said What?

[Universe Prince]

When you say expressing an alternate reading to your approved take on Coulter's remarks is somehow akin to defending her, you aren't leaving much room for independent thought, which in my opinion is a cornerstone to the concept of individualism.

I was not aware that expressing an opinion infringed on your independent thought. First of all, it isn't my approved take. Her words were plain and her statement clear. Coulter said, "I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate, John Edwards, but it turns out that you have to go into rehab if you use the word 'faggot,' so I'm - so, kind of at an impasse, can't really talk about Edwards, so I think I'll just conclude here and take your questions." You suggested that "but it turns out that you have to go into rehab if you use the word 'faggot,'" was a non sequitur phrase that had nothing to do with the rest of the sentence. You're not challenging some trumped up twisting of Coulter's comment. You're suggesting she did not mean what she clearly said because maybe she has a habit of not "speaking perfectly sequential English". How that could be anything but an excuse or some form of defense for Coulter's statement, I don't know. Seems to me you're the one trying to infringe on independent thought by suggesting anyone who thinks Coulter meant exactly what she said is somehow misinterpreting what she said.

Now maybe you're making an excuse because you like her, or maybe you don't and just think she has been unfairly criticized. I don't know your reasons, but your reasons are immaterial to the initial point I made. The point being that the excuse you've concocted is ridiculous.

As for my comments to the effect that how we respond to Coulter's comments reflects on us, I see no reason to back down from that. I am not demanding anyone have a single, specific response to Coulter's words. All I am suggesting is that how we respond to Coulter's words says something about us. For whatever reason, you keep dancing around this concept while insisting I'm somehow trying to limit other people's independent thought. There is nothing anti-individualism about suggesting that how an individual reacts to what Coulter said indicates something about the individual. If you are uncomfortable with the the possibility that someone might have an unfavorable opinion of your reaction to Coulter's comments, then that would be your problem, not mine.

[hnumpah]

Sorry Plane.  I simply get a tad irritated when folks like H will refer to someone who has frequently criticised, even condemned aspects of Bush's presidency as "spending all my time in defending this loser administration".  Whether it's me or you, it's a bogus accusation to begin with, and needs to be demonstrated as such.  My apologoes if it seemed to go too far or get too personal

And I get irritated - more than a tad - when I say something in here that you, for whatever reason, decide must have some hidden meaning or motivation, even after I explain to you, sometimes several times, exactly what I meant. I get tired of having you tell me what you think I really meant, even after I have explained to you that you are incorrect. You strike me as the kind of person who would argue with his mother that there must be some hidden meaning if she simply told you she loved you. You are an annoying pain in the ass who sometimes seems bent on nothing more than provoking an argument with me so you can sit back and pretend innocence. You are the one who keeps making it personal, who always seems to want to believe that whatever I say is somehow about you. Here's a hot news flash for you - it isn't. I could give a rat's ass about you, and generally go out of my way to avoid you, for the reasons I have given above, and that I hate repeating myself over and over to people who just can't seem to grasp simple English, or who want to pretend they don't simply to provoke an argument.

[BT]

UP

Let's try this again.

Your reading of the statement is different than mine. It happens.

I really don't care if yoiu find my reading rediculous. I have explained numerous times my reasons for that reading. I can live with that reasoning. And

Your disagreement with my reading somehow compels you to assign motive to my reading. How else would i come up with such a rediculous interpretation unless i was trying to defend her, which you assign negative attributes because that puts me on Coulter's side of the fence. In other words it is you who accuse. It is you who assign values. It is you who judges motivation. And you couldn't be more wrong. If i am defending anything it is my read of her statement, not her.

But that doesn't matter. You have passed judgment and found me guilty.

Pooh yi, to steal a phrase.

[Lanya]

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003556422

2 more newspapers drop Coulter

[sirs]

And I get irritated - more than a tad - when I say something in here that you, for whatever reason, decide must have some hidden meaning or motivation, even after I explain to you, sometimes several times, exactly what I meant. I get tired of having you tell me what you think I really meant, even after I have explained to you that you are incorrect.

Ditto, kinda like this defending all the time this loser administration, when I've demonstrated my frequent opposition to many a policy and decision making.  So I'd appreciate it if you'd stop.  I thank you in advance

[Amianthus]

2 more newspapers drop Coulter

Yeah, it's a shame those papers don't have any respect for her freedom of speech, ain't it?

[BT]

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003556422

2 more newspapers drop Coulter

Isn't this the "drop the dixie chicks from the playlist" strategy?

I'm guessing it is somehow different. More noble perhaps.

[Universe Prince]

Your disagreement with my reading somehow compels you to assign motive to my reading. How else would i come up with such a rediculous interpretation unless i was trying to defend her,

I don't know how to look at your explanation of how Coulter's comment does not mean what it appears to mean, and not see an excuse. You were arguing with Pooch about the notion of a demand to denounce Coulter. Pooch said, basically, that Coulter's comment meant exactly what it said because otherwise the "but it turns out that you have to go into rehab if you use the word 'faggot,'" would be a non sequitur, to which you replied, basically, that such could very well be the case. You keep telling me this is not an excuse for Coulter's comment, but I don't see how it could not be an excuse. I'm not trying to assign anything. An excuse is all I see there. You seem to be claiming now that the non sequitur version of Coulter's statement is just your "reading" of it and that you're just defending your "reading". I find it hard to believe that you would accept that sort of explanation from me or anyone else. But okay, for the sake of argument, I'll accept that you're just defending your "reading".

How else would i come up with such a rediculous interpretation unless i was trying to defend her, which you assign negative attributes because that puts me on Coulter's side of the fence.

And now, apparently, you expect me to set aside all judgment of the matter. Somehow I'm not supposed to have an opinion on the issue. I am supposed to ignore how people respond to Coulter's comments or somehow find nothing indicative about the individual's response. But you say I'm the one telling people what to think?

In other words it is you who accuse. It is you who assign values. It is you who judges motivation. And you couldn't be more wrong. If i am defending anything it is my read of her statement, not her.

But that doesn't matter. You have passed judgment and found me guilty.

Pooh yi, to steal a phrase.

Pooh yi indeed. I have an opinion, and you're offended by it. And now you talking as if I've somehow tried to force you into conformity by expressing an opinion you don't like. And I'd say you were doing most of the judging. You started making accusations that people who expressed the opinon that Coulter's comments ought to be condemned were somehow trying to "herd sheep" and being inconsistent by supporting individualism but telling others what to think. You started inferring meanings that allowed to you condemn those whose opinions on the matter you did not like. You passed judgement, and you found people guilty, and you denounced. I know I said this once already in this thread, but to use it again here seems appropriate: Physician, heal thyself.

[BT]

And now, apparently, you expect me to set aside all judgment of the matter. Somehow I'm not supposed to have an opinion on the issue. I am supposed to ignore how people respond to Coulter's comments or somehow find nothing indicative about the individual's response. But you say I'm the one telling people what to think?

Nothing of the kind. You insist i am defending Coulter even though all i'm defending is my read on her statement.


Certainly you are entitled to an opinion. I just don't have to accept it as gospel. Because in my case it isn't.

[Universe Prince]

You insist i am defending Coulter even though all i'm defending is my read on her statement.

Yes, and your "read" on her statement is, oddly enough, that she didn't mean what she said because she wasn't using "sequential English". How could anyone (this is a sarcastic question by the way) possibly construe that as an excuse for what Coulter said? It's just too bizarre to suggest that she meant what she said. (Oh, and that was sarcasm as well.)

[BT]

Yes, and your "read" on her statement is, oddly enough, that she didn't mean what she said because she wasn't using "sequential English". How could anyone (this is a sarcastic question by the way) possibly construe that as an excuse for what Coulter said? It's just too bizarre to suggest that she meant what she said. (Oh, and that was sarcasm as well.)

Why does a different read automatically mean i am excusing coulter?

Please explain oh sarcastic one.

[Universe Prince]

Why does a different read automatically mean i am excusing coulter?

Well, I thought I had explained that. But what the frak, let's do this.

Ann Coulter said, "I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate, John Edwards, but it turns out that you have to go into rehab if you use the word 'faggot,' so I'm - so, kind of at an impasse, can't really talk about Edwards, so I think I'll just conclude here and take your questions." Captain Ed said, "At some point, Republicans will need to get over their issues with homosexuality." You said he was wrong. Pooch said Morrisey's argument had some merit and said Coulter called Edwards a faggot. You said Coulter did not call Edwards a faggot. Pooch said claiming Coulter did not call Edwards a faggot was nitpicking because that was clearly the intent of her sentence. You said it might be nitpicking, but Coulter did not call Edwards a faggot. Pooch suggested that the structure of the sentence clearly indicated that Coulter called Edwards a faggot. (A suggestion with which I completely agree.) To which you responded by asking what authority claims the phrases are related and did Coulter have "a record of speaking perfectly sequential English". And you even followed that up with a run-on sentence, "I can't go to the store right now, what the heck is that on your shirt?" There was further discussion, but that last part of the exchange is where I decided to chime in with my skepticism that your argument was valid.

You are essentially letting her off the hook for her statement. You're saying the clear and obvious meaning of what she said is not what she meant because the phrase "but it turns out that you have to go into rehab if you use the word 'faggot,'" is some sort of non sequitur insertion that has nothing to with the rest of the sentence. You are claiming that no one can accuse Coulter of calling Edwards a faggot because the phrase "but it turns out that you have to go into rehab if you use the word 'faggot,'" is somehow not related to anything else in that sentence. You say this is not a defense of Coulter. Okay, but how then is it not an excuse? You went past "she didn't directly say it" and moved on to "she didn't mean it that way because...". I see nothing unreasonable or illogical about the conclusion that you've made an excuse for Coulter. But if you prefer, you can think of it as my "reading" of your comment.

[BT]

You are claiming that no one can accuse Coulter of calling Edwards a faggot because the phrase "but it turns out that you have to go into rehab if you use the word 'faggot,'" is somehow not related to anything else in that sentence.

Where did I say that?

[Universe Prince]

That was my "read" of your not so subtle ways. (I can't seem to stop the sarcasm.)

Okay, so let's say you suggested no one should say Coulter called Edwards a faggot  because the phrase "but it turns out that you have to go into rehab if you use the word 'faggot,'" is somehow not related to anything else in that sentence. My point remains.

[Plane]

Posted by: BT 
Insert Quote
Quote
You are claiming that no one can accuse Coulter of calling Edwards a faggot because the phrase "but it turns out that you have to go into rehab if you use the word 'faggot,'" is somehow not related to anything else in that sentence.


UNQuote

 Where did I say that?


 Posted by: Universe Prince 
Insert Quote
That was my "read" of your not so subtle ways. (I can't seem to stop the sarcasm.)

Okay, so let's say you suggested no one should say Coulter called Edwards a faggot  because the phrase "but it turns out that you have to go into rehab if you use the word 'faggot,'" is somehow not related to anything else in that sentence. My point remains.



[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]


This discussion is so gay.





Oh......

I mean in the "happy" sense , please don't send me to rehab.