[soccermom]

"Not really. It would just be another example in Ann's favor... attacking the messenger rather than the message. Ann makes it very clear why she criticizes the MSM and their handling of the Jersey Girls. Why don't you back up why you think she's a harpy?"

I don't think she is a harpy. That is what she called "The Jersey Girls" -- among other personal attacks. And that is precisely what I object to. She was attacking the messenger, rather than their message. I'm glad you agree with me that attacking the messenger shows a weakness. Coulter has the ability to make an argument without attacking the messenger. I'm merely asking that she do that. Why won't you?

[pgyanke]

I'm glad you agree with me that attacking the messenger shows a weakness. Coulter has the ability to make an argument without attacking the messenger. I'm merely asking that she do that. Why won't you?

There is no weakness to her argument. She isn't attacking the messenger to discredit her opponent. The entire book is an attack on their message. This one small portion in question is about the delivery of their message--through those society considers untouchable and undebatable. It begins as an attack on the MSM who value victimhood and raise victims to rock star status and only briefly touches on the Girls themselves as revelling in their celebrity (a height of society they reach by standing on the coffins of their deceased husbands).

She is entirely on message and correct.

[Scotsman will be Free]

It is one thing to attack the messenger when they are not the originator of the message, as in an envoy, for example. It is entirely different when the messenger originated the message, helped to make the message and/or approves of the content of the message. That would make them part of the message, and fair game.