[robowombat]

Look, if an author misstates or distorts materiel from footnote citation it can be clearly shown. If Coulter does that it should be exposed. Arguments over the authors arguments pro and con are another matter. But faking or garbling quotes or misstating through selective quotation is another matter. If you have evidence of these sorts of authorial sins they should be highlighted.

[King Prout]

Look, if an author misstates or distorts materiel from footnote citation it can be clearly shown. If Coulter does that it should be exposed. Arguments over the authors arguments pro and con are another matter. But faking or garbling quotes or misstating through selective quotation is another matter. If you have evidence of these sorts of authorial sins they should be highlighted.

I will take that as your variant of agreement to the terms. As the slave to my purposes has elected to flee, no harm comes from giving to you what I gave to Chances Are last week.

This is not my work. I stumbled across it while starting my own take on disassembling chapters 8 and 9 - which work can barely be considered begun. It is, however, quite potent: It details approximately ten errors of fact, citation, and representation, and rebuts them thoroughly.

I, like other FReepers, am working on my own tear-down. It will take a while. One of the major problems is Coulter's use of tertiary sources - AP fluff articles - as references. Tracking down pre-internet AP articles is difficult, perhaps impossible, without expensive subscription to specialty archives. This complicates things immensely.