The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The paradox of Muslim weakness > Comments

The paradox of Muslim weakness : Comments

By Sadanand Dhume, published 6/6/2008

Islamists, even when not in power, wield fear and faith to pressure their societies in conservative directions.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. Page 8
  10. All
Cowboy Joe obviously hasn't a clue about the convention of not only acknowledging direct quotations, but also providing references for their sources. For example, from the same Wikipedia article that his last comment plagiarises:

<< In 2001, as a contributing editor and syndicated columnist for National Review Online (NRO), Coulter was asked by editors to make changes to a piece written after the September 11 attacks. On the national television show Politically Incorrect, Coulter accused NRO of censorship and said that she was paid $5 per article. NRO dropped her column and terminated her editorship. Jonah Goldberg, editor-at-large of NRO, said, "We did not 'fire' Ann for what she wrote... we ended the relationship because she behaved with a total lack of professionalism, friendship, and loyalty [concerning the editing disagreement]."[40]

Coulter contracted with USA Today to cover the 2004 Democratic National Convention. She wrote one article that began, "Here at the Spawn of Satan convention in Boston..." and referred to some unspecified female attendees as "corn-fed, no make-up, natural fiber, no-bra needing, sandal-wearing, hirsute, somewhat fragrant hippie chick pie wagons." The newspaper declined to print the article citing an editing dispute over "basic weaknesses in clarity and readability that we found unacceptable." An explanatory article by the paper went on to say "Coulter told the online edition of Editor & Publisher magazine that 'USA Today doesn't like my "tone", humor, sarcasm, etc., which raises the intriguing question of why they hired me to write for them.'" USA Today replaced Coulter with Goldberg, and Coulter published it instead on her website.[41][42][43]

In August 2005, the Arizona Daily Star dropped Coulter's syndicated column citing reader complaints that "Many readers find her shrill, bombastic and mean-spirited. And those are the words used by readers who identified themselves as conservatives."[44] >>

[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Coulter ]

For a fuller description of this NeoCon harpy, I recommend reading the full article.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Tuesday, 17 June 2008 1:52:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sorry - my post reference is Wikipedia.

Lost it for a moment, thought I was writing a research paper for a university assignment, hence the plagiarism.

Good to see that she has once again accomplished her goal of firing up lefties.

Would you like to read her book: If Democrats (i.e. Labor) Had any Brains they Would be Republicans? Her book is probably effectively censored for sale in Australia. Have you noticed it for sale?
Posted by Cowboy Joe, Tuesday, 17 June 2008 2:03:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
CJ,

I thought of intervening earlier when it was clear you were looking for the Author so that you could cast aspersions upon his/her character instead of actually debating the merits of the article. This type of ad hominem attack has no place in this debate when discussing matters of opinion. When looking at facts I concede that who claims them is an important factor. But when discussing opinion, ad hominem attack is pointless and irrelevant.

I could just as easily slag off Pilger as soft left nutbag with a pedigree of muckracking and overly pious grievance mongering. It doesn't actually get us anywhere. How about, for a change, we debate the ideas and not the indentities.
Posted by Paul.L, Tuesday, 17 June 2008 2:57:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Paul.L: << I thought of intervening earlier when it was clear you were looking for the Author so that you could cast aspersions upon his/her character instead of actually debating the merits of the article. >>

No Paul, I wanted to know the author because Cowboy Joe decided to copy and paste an entire crappy article from somewhere else, but didn't do us the courtesy of providing the author's name or where it was originally published. That it turned out to be by a notorious wingnut hack is no surprise at all.

Besides which, isn't this discussion supposed to be about Sadanand Dhume's article? How does lifting an unattributed polemical spray by someone else and plonking it unattributed into the discussion progress the debate, exactly?

BTW - I'm no great fan of Pilger, either. I take anything he writes with a large grain of salt, as I do with all crusaders, whatever their political persuausion.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Tuesday, 17 June 2008 3:53:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
And in June 1942, when German spies who had landed in the U.S. to carry out acts of industrial espionage were captured by the FBI, President Franklin D. Roosevelt acted swiftly to signal to the Supreme Court that he was not going to entertain court intervention. First, FDR issued an executive order on July 2, 1942 that the detainees were to be subject to trial immediately by military commission. FDR also made clear to his attorney general what his reaction would be to any writ of habeas corpus: "One thing I want clearly understood . . . I won't give them up . . . I won't hand them to any United States marshal armed with a writ of habeas corpus." FDR understood the Supreme Court was supreme in the judicial branch but it was not supreme over the other two political branches.

REFERENCE: Human Events Online, Newt Gingrinch, June 17, 2008 Vol. 3, No. 25
Posted by Cowboy Joe, Wednesday, 18 June 2008 6:02:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. Page 8
  10. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy