[Recovering_Democrat]

Furthermore, Coulter didn't even "look at the data". She at most glanced at the title of Marks's paper, didn't even look at the body of the paper *or* any data...

How do you know this?

Coulter had to do this because she had no desire or ability to deal with the actual data itself.

You're sure of her desires? I think she showed a great desire to deal with the facts, since she spent so many pages on the subject. But I s'pose discerning someone else's desires or inner motivations is, most of the time, pretty subjective.

Have a great day!

[ahayes]

How do you know this?

She drew conclusions from it that were completely false. Your options:

1. She didn't read it, just the title.
2. She read it and was too dumb to understand it.
3. She read it, understood it, and lied about it.

Personally, I'd go with "I didn't really read it. . ." as the excuse.

[steve-b]

Furthermore, Coulter didn't even "look at the data". She at most glanced at the title of Marks's paper, didn't even look at the body of the paper *or* any data...
How do you know this?

The same way one knows (for example) that someone who says "Reagan's tax cuts didn't work" has never looked at figures showing the amount of revenue entering the Federal treasury during the early 1980s.

That is, when someone states a "fact" that is immediately and obviously contradicted by the records, one may infer that the stater has never looked at the records. (It's also possible that the stater is simply flat-out lying, but it's polite to assume the former unless forced to the latter.)

[steve-b]

I think she showed a great desire to deal with the facts, since she spent so many pages on the subject.

ROFL!! This has got to be the single stupidest statement I've read this week, and that's saying something.

The Communist Manifesto, Mein Kampf, It Takes A Village, and Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance also contain a great many pages. Does that mean that they reliably deal with the facts?