Ann Coulter: When Johnny comes slinking home

WorldNetDaily ^ | 12/12/2001 | Ann Coulter

[ConsistentLibertarian]

Budweiser sucks. But if you like it, I say enjoy.

[samtheman]

I like Ann, and think she writes brilliant one-liners (treat women like goats and vice-versa), but I will ask again, as I have asked at other times in regard to her posts: how can she postulate a Terrorist Deportation Plan and then drop all further mention of it, and not even mention why she's dropped all further mention of it. She owes us, at the very least, an explanation. I believe that her TDP is the best thing she's ever come up with. Obviously she doesn't think so... or she's been pressured to shut up about it. Either way she should tell her fans (of which I am one) the reason why.

[M. Thatcher]

Let's take cases. Suppose someone pretends to be both left wing and non-judgemental. One might comment on the "phony left-wing non-judgmentalism." Second case: A bona fide left-winger pretends to be non-judgmental. So as to distinguish this case from the first, one might comment on the "left-wing phony non-jugmentalism". Scope is a powerful tool for creating or eliminating syntatic ambiguity. You might want to add it to your toolkit.

There is no first case, and all left-wingers fit the second. There is no need to distinguish between an impossiblitiy and a universal truth. Her usage is correct, as are my examples in post 21, which apply directly to you.

[Diverdogz]

If I had one criticism of Ann's article, it is this:

Ann is a very bright and articulate woman. Why is she wasting her coulmn this week by bashing such an easy target? Seems like she picked this only because she is trying to rehabilitate herself (whether or not this is even necessary is another question onto itself) from the recent controversies surrounding her column.

One other minor point - I wonder if some may find it hard to take her comments about reading scripture seriously when the adjacent picture of her is so provocative. ....though, this photo may have been added by the you (if so, thanks!). I personally like the photo, being a red-blooded male with a taste for petite long blonde haired women in slinky attire.

[ConsistentLibertarian]

;-) I really don't see the payoff here -- it would be so easy to say "Big deal". But what the heck. Maybe we should look in something like _The Elements of Style_?

[JudyB1938]

You two are funny.

[M. Thatcher]

I really don't see the payoff here

Don't start something you can't finish.

[ConsistentLibertarian]

Humor's a good thing ;-)

[ConsistentLibertarian]

You sound personally invested. Maybe it's how you started? The "I'm an editor" line puts you in a position where you can't easily back up.

[Ole Okie]

never knew libertarians were against women and Budweiser. That's an eye opener.

Kinda dulls the sparkle of being a libertarian, doesn't it?

[M. Thatcher]

You sound personally invested. Maybe it's how you started? The "I'm an editor" line puts you in a position where you can't easily back up.

Why would I want to "back up" when I won the argument? You've twice mentioned your wish to say, "big deal." So concede, already, and go away.

[GoreNoMore]

Are you speaking from a personal experience.

[gcruse]

We can only hope the government will deal with California
Talibanist John Walker as harshly as it did with Elian Gonzalez.

The govt send Elian home to his father.  You want
to send Walker back to Marin?  Have a meal, Annie.
Preferably some brain food.

[ConsistentLibertarian]

Actually, that was a suggestion about your highest percentage strategy. So far, you've gone from "I'm an editor" to resting your hat on the impossiblity of pretending to be left wing. If it's a simple point about grammer, you don't need anything half so desperate or fanciful. Take a peek at a classic, like _The Elements of Style_ ... "Modifiers should come, if possible, next to the word they modify". It's a simple point. Going five rounds trying to deny it paints the Coulter Club in unflattering colors.

[ConsistentLibertarian]

Gosh yes. I have often met incompetent people, more often in government than in the private sector, but there too. I'd subscribe to Sturgeon's Law -- that 90% of everything is crap -- if it weren't for the possiblity of its recursive application.

[Johnny Shear]

b

[onedoug]

[M. Thatcher]

Your ignorance of proper American usage may be due to your foreign education (which I deduce from your Brit spelling of "defence," post 30). Anne's phrase, "phony left-wing non-judgmentalism," is correct. Both "phony" and "left-wing" modify "non-judgmentalism." There is no need to correct her order of modifiers. She could have also said "stupid phony left-wing judgmentalism," or added any number of serial modifiers, or changed their order; all would be acceptable. Your "correction," to "left-wing phony judgmentalism" is also grammatically proper, but it is an awkward formulation and no American would use it.

My entire point here is that her usage is fine, your correction specious, and you should give up now.

[ConsistentLibertarian]

If they're coordinate adjectives, both modifying "non-judgmental" there should be a comma between them. That's a strained reading anyways, but even on your new view, she (and her editor) goofed. As you noticed, I can't spell worth crap. Sometimes people comment and I'm always straight with them. I say "I can't spell worth crap". It's painless. But you'd be amazed at how many people won't say "Oops. I left out the comma" or "Oops, that's sloppy". YMMV, and probably does.

[M. Thatcher]

No need for a comma; the meaning of "phony left-wing non-judgmentalism" is clear to everyone but yourself. As is the meaning of "stupid left-wing tripe" or "clueless left-wing nitpicking" or "idiotic left-wing grandstanding"; all of which you have publicly demonstrated.

You can move on to your next chapter in Elements of Style now.