I never said that. I never excused the insults.
Me: 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.
You said that Coulter's opposition almost never stops going after the woman personally. Meanwhile out of the first 50 or so posts, I only counted one who criticized her weight and none who called her a drunkard.
That's reasoned debate to you. That's what you consider a reasoned response. The smear of all in opposition because one in the opposition commented on her weight.
As I said before you do what you complain about. You should really correct the record.
As far as Coulter's weight goes, if some posters think that it's germain to the argument to comment on Coulter's weight and how she looks good, then it's not surprising that others would comment that they think she's too skinny. How shocking!
I could see it now. Some posters would comment on Hillary's lovely leg's and you would be so shocked to see other posters saying that they are not.
Your erroneous comment still remains, yet to be corrected;
There was nothing erroneous about either of my comments.
And you said, "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?"
That certainly sounds like you're excusing them to me. The only time personal insults are appropriate are responding in kind.
"Nearly 800 posts, and Ms. Coulter's opposition almost never stops going after the woman as a chicken-legged drunkard who never loved Bush to begin with."
Your irrelevant aside on Hillary's legs notwithstanding, my sureness in my comments is only reinforced by your statements above, where you demonstrate that while you might not have agreed in your posts with those who denigrated her person, you certainly agreed with them in spirit. You certainly haven't disagreed with them by supporting them, unless there's some logic trick I missed where you wave a wand and doing A=doing B.