I have no problem with her working with publicists to sell books. I just don’t think she says what she says in the way she says it to sell books. I thought Ann actually talked that way to everyone. She says she does anyway.

I guess I will give you more fodder for insults and tell you that I am 30 years old with a college education in information technology and networking. So go ahead and go after me… I gave you the ammo so is my fault.

Why would you say that her working with publicists to sell more books is “threatening” to me? That is a little strange and totally wrong on its face. How could that possibly threaten me in any way? That is just silly.

Look, I just think from listening to Ann herself; that she doesn’t decide before she goes on the Today Show that, “Hey, I’m going onto this liberal format, I better make my remarks alot more nasty.. that will sure sell books.” That is all I’m saying and I guess I am not doing it very well. Then again… why should I care what some strange guy on the internet thinks about me anyway (that was a joke in case you were lining up more insults for me on that one).

How about answering me a question: Why did it take only an off-hand kool aid remark for you to start spewing some fairly personal insults? I did NOT intentionally mischaracterize your statements; and I still say that she does not meet with her publicist before she has an interview and starts to cook up gimmicks to sell books. What she says is just that… what she says. It is my opinion that the publicity comes because what she says is genuine; not because her and a publicist got together to cook up some political bombs. Ann has been doing this since long before she had a publicist.

OK.. I’m ready for more name calling now; have at it. You already managed to call me a few names and guilt me into giving you a sincere public apology by saying I lack integrity. For someone who can spew forth the venom like you can; I doubt you could do little more with “integrity” than spell the word.

Cary on June 9, 2006 at 2:45 PM

Son - you seem to have completely forgotten that YOU attacked me. Personally. I suggested rather explicitly that Coulter’s choice of wording (which according to you had absolutely nothing to do with creating interest in her or her book) … has created a great deal of interest in her and her book. I further noted that the furor, on television and left and right wing blogs, is selling even more books.

This was your response, our first communication:

“Accusing her of having her beliefs because of money is accusing her of committing fraud on the public and her readers. Her message has been the same since before she was wealthy… put down the kool aid please. Not trying to offend you; just simply challenging your mischaracterization of Ann Coulter.”

You personally attacked me, suggested I said things when in fact I said the opposite, and repeatedly and intentionally (or stupidly) misstated my argument.

I’m STILL waiting for you to back up this:
““You said that “how, where, and what” she says IS influenced heavily by marketing concerns.”

Which I never said - in fact, I said the opposite. If you have looked up the thread, you’ve found what I actually said, but apparently don’t want to admit it.

Since you won’t, I’ll do it for you.

Here’s the line you tried to quote and purposefully changed: “I have never even considered that she doesn’t mean what she says - but it is plainly evident that how and where and when she chooses make certain statements are heavily influenced by marketing concerns.”

Not “how, where and WHAT” — but “how, where, and WHEN.” The difference is critical since, as you can see in that line I just pasted, I (once again, for the hundredth time) most specifically do NOT think Coulter changes WHAT she says.

Any chance you’ll avoid making that assertion again, since I’ve now made it clear for fourth time? Any chance if you quote me you’ll do it correctly?

Any chance you’ll remember next time when YOU initiate an attack on someone else? Or do you just prefer to pretend to be a victim? (Are you a liberal troll by any chance?)

Now to the above:

“Why did it take only an off-hand kool aid remark for you to start spewing some fairly personal insults?”

You attacked me. You spewed personal insults. Get it straight.

“I did NOT intentionally mischaracterize your statements”

As is clear from the above - you either intentionally or stupidly changed what I said and then quoted it as my words, completely changing the meaning. Was it intentional or stupid?

“Why would you say that her working with publicists to sell more books is “threatening” to me? That is a little strange and totally wrong on its face. How could that possibly threaten me in any way? That is just silly”

I say its threatening to you because it clearly is. Here we have the crux of our disagreement - you somehow manage to believe that people in the public eye do not choose the manner in which they say and do things in order to stay in the public eye.

That belief is so laughably naive that there’s no real arguing with it. Your free to beleive it - and you’re free to get awfully defensive about defending it. Which you are, which is why I’m wondering why it’s so threatening to you.

I sincerely doubt that given a year of time you could find another human being who won’t acknowledge that Ann Coulter uses hyperbolic rhetoric and specifically inflammatory language to boost her own publicity. Go see if you can find one. :)

“You already managed to call me a few names and guilt me into giving you a sincere public apology by saying I lack integrity. For someone who can spew forth the venom like you can; I doubt you could do little more with “integrity” than spell the word.”

Say it with me. Slowly. You can do this. You. Attacked. Me. You attacked me, personally, for suggesting that Ann Coulter is brilliant self-marketer, which not one person on Earth other than you would disagree with. Which part of the above do you not understand?

—————–

I’ll repeat my question (and never get an answer): let’s assume for the sake of argument that what every thinking being on the planet already knows is true - that Coulter does choose her words very specifically to create interest in her and her books.

What is wrong with that? Why does that, if true, bother you?

Can you name a public figure of any sort, politician or artist of any kind, who doesn’t do exactly the same thing?

Suppose Coulter came out tomorrow and made the very same arguments but did so in a polite non-confrontational manner. Would her book sales increase - or decrease? And why?

I welcome your response to any of the above questions, although I’m mostly still curious why the utterly obvious fact that she promotes herself still bothers you so much.

Professor Blather on June 9, 2006 at 3:09 PM

“They keep pulling me back in……”

“Accusing her of having her beliefs because of money is accusing her of committing fraud on the public and her readers. Her message has been the same since before she was wealthy… put down the kool aid please. Not trying to offend you; just simply challenging your mischaracterization of Ann Coulter.” -Cary

That was the attack.. the kool aid remark.. that I apologized for. After my apology, that you called for… you said a number of nasty things about me personally which pretty much blew away any apology I felt. Get the timeline right on the insults at least.. everyone can scroll up and see my first remark and then yours afterwards.. even after my apology to you; right after it to be specific.

“I say its threatening to you because it clearly is. Here we have the crux of our disagreement - you somehow manage to believe that people in the public eye do not choose the manner in which they say and do things in order to stay in the public eye.” -Blather

I told you again and again that I have no problem in her working with publicists to help sell books. That was NOT the crux of my point. My point was that she does not alter her words (by this I mean serious changes to her statements) to stay in the public eye. NOT that you are saying she changes her beliefs or her opinions in order to do so.

“Not “how, where and WHAT” — but “how, where, and WHEN.” The difference is critical since, as you can see in that line I just pasted, I (once again, for the hundredth time) most specifically do NOT think Coulter changes WHAT she says.” -Blather

Now here is where YOU need to read carefully. I absolutely made a genuine mistake in saying “what”… that was a misquote and totally my fault. If you look back previously you will see that it was the “how” part that I was talking about specifically. I even told you that in a previous post but you ignored it and you just ignored it again.

I never said that people in the public eye don’t choose their words carefully… I never said that or alluded to it. You are now putting words in my mouth too. The accuser so easily becomes the guilty.

I am defensive because you keep harping on what is NOT my point and it is frustrating to be sure. Again my problem with your statement was and is the “how” part… “how” she says things.

Again, I realized I made an inaccurate personal attack in the statement I quoted above with the kool aid remark, my first remark in our little happy fun time. YOU asked for an apology and I gave you a sincere one. AFTER that you continued with some fairly petty insults.. EVEN after the apology. You don’t get to talk integrity then continue to wail on someone after you get the apology you asked for.

You have tried to turn my argument into everything else but what I said. Again and again I will stress the “how” part of the statement you say I am lying about. YES, I actually mis-typed when quoted “what” instead of “when”. It was a mistake and not even part of my damn point. Get past it.

You incorrectly believe that I am threatened… I will say this again hoping it will sink in… I have no problem with Ann or anyone else choosing their words in a way to sell books or whatever they are selling; unless they are outright lying of course. You want to change this argument into me being threatened by a perfectly acceptable publicity machine.

I keep going back to this and I always will… my problem was the “how”… you can read back and see that very plainly in previous posts… and here it is along with my misquoting of “what” instead of “when”:

“You said that “how, where, and what” she says IS influenced heavily by marketing concerns. THAT is what got me kinda pissed off… the “how” part specifically. The publishers deal with marketing; Ann just speaks her mind “how” she has always done.” -Cary

Now tell me Blather… what word did I harp on?? Can you spell it for me?

“Suppose Coulter came out tomorrow and made the very same arguments but did so in a polite non-confrontational manner. Would her book sales increase - or decrease? And why?” -Blather

Ann is not polite or impolite… she simply speaks the facts. I totally agree that if she pretended to be “polite” then sales would drop. I sumbit to you that she is not pretending to be confrontational… she is again, speaking the facts. Facts are facts.. how do you nicely say that widows are enjoying their husbands deaths? You don’t is the answer… you just say it.

And of course for good measure and to repeat myself over and over and over again… it was the “HOW” of your statement that got me. So instead of addresssing my concern there what did you do?… go after the “what” that should have been the “when” without mentioning the “how”. Priceless and smooth.. but no cookie. You want to take my comments on your statement about Ann and turn it into a referendum by me on all marketing everywhere.

I answered your major questions and specifically the belief you keep falsely accusing me of. And AGAIN so there is no confusion…the “what” was a TYPO and even with the typo it was not the part I was even addressing. It is obvious to even an idiot that I did not use the typo to my benefit and how the Hell could I? Your posts are right here for everyone to see as are mine. Why would I quote you and change it when the original is right above. Obvious typo on the “what” and I didn’t even know I made it until you pointed it out. You are grasping for straws now and still NOT addressing my comment on the “how”.

I still do not believe that Ann changes how she says things to Matt Lauer or anyone else in order to gain more publicity. The publicity from her spoken facts is a by-product, and a welcome one. Now, if you asked me the question: Do you believe that people change how they say things in order to gain publicity; I would say YES of course they do. I am telling you that I don’t believe Ann is necessarily one of those people. Why do you think she is?

Here is another quote from you Blather.. the FULL sentence:

“And for the record … YOU need to put down the Kool-Aid if you think Coulter does not choose HOW she says things (with the encouragement of her publishers) with a very specific intent to boost sales.” -Blather

Again I just don’t believe that Ann necessarily does this. Why you would think that I believe this about all people everywhere is just… well… wierd. And I stand by my “fraud” remark dammit. Accusing her of changing HOW she says things in any way for money is accusing her of just that. Calling you a kool aid drinker was wrong; but you are saying she is dishonest by implying that she alters her words for publicity. She is NOT throwing right wing bombs you goofball… they are teddy bears full of facts!

Cary on June 9, 2006 at 4:10 PM

Neil Steinberg in the Chicago Sun-Times just referred to Ann today as a “horse-faced, bottle-blonde venomous doxy”. HAHAHAHAH

God, does she get under Democrat’s skin or what? HAHAHAH

Wow.

Earning that book advance, one dollar at a time. Doing a job most Americans won’t do.

clyde on June 9, 2006 at 4:16 PM

Boy I really - REALLY - wish I could have put some serious money down on whether this goofball (Cary) would have kept his word when he promised for the third or fourth (or fifth) time to never, ever respond to this thread again!

I repeat: he’s a liberal troll. It is the only explanation for his intellectual dishonesty.

Go ahead, Cary - after you promise never to respond again - explain one more time how Coulter is NOT intentionally working to increase the publicity afforded to her public statements. Go ahead. Its priceless entertainment. Explain to us one more time that, despite the fact that she relies on publicity, she had no interest in publicity.

Please. Go ahead.

While you’re at it, explain why my Tennessee Titans aren’t working to win games to fill seats at the Coliseum. Explain why Stephen King isn’t working to make his books popular enough to make his publishers happy. Explain why the producers of 24 aren’t choosing their scripts to maximize Neilson ratings. For that matter, explain how exactly Republican candidates aren’t choosing how exactly they word their message to maximize votes in November.

It’s all the same thing, kid. And the fact you don’t get it is mind boggling. You’re either bizarrly obsessed with Coulter in a clearly sexual way - or simply utterly divorced from the reality the rest of us live in. Or, you’re just a DU troll.

And thank you - sincerely - for reminding me that uneducated naivete is present on both sides of the aisle. Assuming you’re not just a liberal being liberal.

Seriously, kid: aren’t you at all embarrassed? You really ought to have the intelligence to understand that Coulter is not an accident - she has succeeded on purpose. Ann herself would be laughing at your idiocy. In fact, she’d be offended. You seem to be suggesting that her success has nothing to do with thought, planning, effort, or discipline.

And you keep on insisting that her editors don’t edit, her publicists don’t read her words, and she herself never, ever reads what she just wrote. It’s all a happy accident right? A coincidence? Good luck with that, Sparky.

You are officially the dumbest person - conservative or liberal - I have ever encountered. No joke.

And when you respond to this message, it will be the fourth (I think. Maybe fifth?) time you’ve promised never to respond again. Is this your integrity talking?

My last word: I challenge you to find one other thinking human being - any human being with an IQ in double digits - who agrees with your belief that public figures don’t intentially try to remain public figures.

That $1,000 is still waiting for you, kid. Find me one person who doesn’t think Coulter (and every other public person in history) intentially chooses her words and actions to create more publicity.

Heck, let’s make it a million. A billion?

You are the single dumbest person I’ve ever met. And yes, that includes the funny folks at DU. Even THEY understand that (yep) public figures … want to be public figures. Even they understand that when you rely on publicity for your living … you want publicity.

When you break your promise for the fourth or fifth time (there’s your integrity), just answer this: do you honestly believe that Coulter (and every other pundit in history) does NOT pick his/her words to create publicity/ interest/ratings?

How can you so completely misunderstand conservatism? Capitalism? Free market economics? Reality?

I’m utterly baffled. I can’t believe you broke your own promise once again, I can’t believe you so complely misunderstand capitalism, and I’m still just stunned that you’re threatened by the fact that public figures like Coulter … work specifically to remain public figures.

And let’s rememember: every bit of this bizarre conversation began when I complimented Coulter on her clearly exemplary marketing skills.

When you respond for that fourth or fifth (or sixth) time after swearing never to do so, I do hope you’ll finally explain why that bothers you so much.

Professor Blather on June 10, 2006 at 4:29 AM