[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.

[soccermom]

Ohhhhhhh I get it! So when I hypothetically brought up the idea of anyone calling Coulter a "harpy", you considered it "attacking the messenger." But when I point out that it was Coulter who called the "Jersey Girls" "harpies" -- not to mention calling them "witches", speculating their husbands would have divorced them and they want to be in Playboy -- that isn't attacking the messenger! I got it! Thanks for clearing that up! You are quite the talented contortionist to manage that kind of dancing on the head of a pin!