If it's not related to whether or not Ann Coulter used those articles as sources, then I indeed do not care. That's a separate discussion.
Remember? Your post was tagged 'Not News' and I claimed that wasn't completely unreasonable because she doesn't use any sources to back up her claims. That's all this is about. I am not trying to discuss either of our opinions of the issue mentioned in the article, just the quality of the article itself.
If it's not related to whether or not Ann Coulter used those articles as sources, then I indeed do not care. That's a separate discussion.
Remember? Your post was tagged 'Not News' and I claimed that wasn't *completely* unreasonable because she doesn't use any sources to back up her claims. That's all this is about. I am not trying to discuss either of our opinions of the issue mentioned in the article, just the quality of the article itself.
I am ignoring them because she didn't use those articles to back up her claims. She was hitting on the articles. She was disputing them. She called them hysterical and claimed they left out relevant information.
If she used them as sources, she wouldn't be doing that.
Why is this hard to understand?
I am ignoring them because she didn't use those articles to back up her claims. She was *hitting* on the articles. She was disputing them. She called them hysterical and claimed they left out relevant information.
If she used them as sources, she wouldn't be doing that.
Why is this hard to understand?
Would you like me to get specific or reiterate the "reasons you don't care"?