Coulter Debate: Part 3

See Parts 1 and 2 of for the beginning and middle portions of this discussion.

After Mr. Auster continued in his criticism of Coulter and his omission of my comment from his blog, I fired off this letter to him as a parting shot:


Mr. Auster:


My recent experience discussing with you the matter of Ann Coulter's controversial statement leads me to conclude that you have an underdeveloped sense of fair play.

First, you insult me by dismissing specific, relevant arguments as "childishness"--without rebutting them.

Second, you accuse me of "complaining," when I point out this behavior.

Third, you choose artificially to have the final word on the matter, by refusing to post my last email comment in defense of my remarks, which leaves your most recent response to me standing unchallenged.

And fourth, you continue repeating some of the same arguments I refuted--in the same post--such as when you responded to Kevin O. thusly, in the "Coulter and Edwards" discussion: In America one man does not call another man a faggot unless he is prepared to fight him or to destroy him in the eyes of others. That’s why Coulter’s use of the word was particularly objectionable, since as a woman she can get away with it.

You still haven't refuted--or even addressed, for that matter--my comments regarding this assertion. You know as well as I that character assassinations far worse than this perceived example happen regularly--from man to man--in public forums. Your suggesting otherwise is bizarre, to say the least, and demonstrably wrong. You also seem oblivious to the fact that Coulter hasn't gotten away with it, by any stretch of the imagination. She has met vociferous, public condemnation from the Left and the Right--including the withdrawal of advertisers from her website, and the dropping of her column from at least one newspaper.

I know very little about the slights and attacks you've mentioned receiving from pundits and other columnists, in the past; perhaps you've endured shoddy, unjust treatment. But I do know that if you've engaged them with the same tactics and unrepentant tactlessness exhibited toward me, you've earned their malice.


Sincerely,
Wes

He responded by posting my email on his blog, followed by:

AUSTER: I’m sorry, I receive many e-mails, and when lot of e-mails come in, and they have many numbered points, and points referring to earlier points, then further e-mails complaining that I haven’t replied to all the earlier points, and those subsequent e-mails also have numbered points, and I’m expected to reply to all of them regardless of how valid they are and all of this takes time and energy, not everything may get replied to. I think I did post your e-mail of March 6 at 1:38 a.m. with its six points. Then you complained that I didn’t reply to all of your points. I replied to that complaint as I remember.

I’m sorry for saying that your arguments were childishness. I shouldn’t have done that. However, (1) I wasn’t just speaking of your arguments, but of this entire approach which many people, not just you, have taken. (2) I did rebut your argument. I said: “The reader’s position comes down to saying, Democrats are bad, Democrats seek to destroy our society, Democrats call us racists and fascists, therefore let’s call Democrats ‘faggots.’”

Your original point three, which you seem to set great store by, was incoherent. That is why I did not reply to it. Yet then you wrote again, complaining that I did not reply to your point three. I replied by saying that points three, four and six were not worth replying to. But that wasn’t enough for you. So let’s look at it again:

"3. Coulter stood by her comment. In an exchange with Adam Nagourney from the NYT:

Nagourney: The three Republican presidential contenders denouncing you….Do you want to do any response?

Coulter: C’mon it was a joke. I would never insult gays by suggesting that they are like John Edwards. That would be mean. Did any of these guys say anything after I made the same remark about Al Gore last summer? Why not? What were they trying to say about Al Gore with their silence?

On the front page of her blog is this headline: AMBULANCE CHASER GETS REAR-ENDED BY ANN COULTER—I’m so ashamed, I can’t stop laughing!

Not what I’d consider a retreat."

First you say she “stood by her point.” Then you point out that she said it was a joke. Then you reference a further joke she made. Then you say she has not retreated.

It is not possible to determine any coherent meaning in all this. That is why I did not reply to it. Do you understand now?

And this is your problem: not only do you send multi-point e-mails, but some of the points, like your point three, consists of several statements which do not fit with each other.

So let me suggest this. When writing comments to a discussion, keep it simple. Make one or at most two points at a time. Do not make six points in a busy discussion, with sub-points to your main points, and expect a reply to all of them, and then complain that you’re being treated unfairly if you don’t get a reply to everything you have said.

Now if you want to write back with a concise statement of why I’m wrong about Coulter, please do so.


(TO BE CONCLUDED)