I opposed certain aspects of Coulter's article. I never called her chicken-legged or drunkard. Many other posters also opposed aspects of her article and never resorted to these personal attacks.
Yet you quantify Coulter's opposition as posters who "almost never stops going after the woman as a chicken-legged drunkard".
The initial posters on this thread who mention Culter's looks were supporters of her article. They are the ones who brought up the subject of Coulter's physical appearence. If it's fair game to say that her article is correct, that she looks great and that here is a picture of her, then why isn't also fair game by people who don't think her article is correct and who think that she's too skinny to say so? Why don't you criticize the posters who thought "skinny-good-looks" was germain to this debate and who thought posting pictures of Coulters "slender-beauty" was germaine to this debate.
BTW, I just looked at the first 50 posts on this thread. One poster said she was too skinny and no posters said that she was a drunkard. Yet in those same 50 posts we had about a handful of pro-article people who initiated the physical attribute debate by posting pictures of her. Yet you say the following;
You are what you complain about.
Your response is 'we're not ALL calling her a chicken-legged drunkard' and 'some folks who like her article call her pretty so since we don't like her article we can call her ugly.' Reasoned debate to you means that not ALL of you insult her that way, so it's perfectly okay to do so, and then, of course, that it's appropriate to insult her person because others complimented it?
Are you trying to make me laugh or being serious?
Funniest of all, you try to indignantly claim I'm doing it, too. Gosh, let me rush to apologize like you did for your insult-spewing compatriots...
...but before I do, let me think, where have I heard the everyone-is-scum-so-our-acting-scummy-is-okay strategy before...hmmmmm...