More examples of plagiarism in Coulter's new book

List copied nearly 'word-for-word'... Developing...

http://www.rawstory.com/

:evilgrin:

List copied nearly 'word-for-word'... Developing...

http://www.rawstory.com /


It's easy to copy nowadays.

She probably copied freeper comments from that website.
It's easy to write a book, if all you do is copy hateful comments, and we know that there is an abundance of them, from his/her fellow wingnuts.

A blogger who - nearly a year ago - accused conservative pundit Ann Coulter of plagiarism is now making additional claims in regards to her new book which was published only a week ago, RAW STORY has found.

In a series of posts, The Rude Pundit, shows examples of "possibly plagiarism" by Coulter in the book, Godless: The Church of Liberalism released last Tuesday (6/6/06) by Random House's Crown Publishing Group.

Last night, The Rude Pundit pointed to a passage from Coulter's fourth chapter which appears to have been derived from a 2004 60 Minutes interview with Judge Charles Pickering (link). According to the blogger, Coulter's apparent use of the transcript led to an error in the text.

"In 1966, he testified against Klan member Sam Bowers, on trial for murdering civil rights activist Vernon Damer," Coulter wrote.

"Back in 1966, after civil rights activist Vernon Damer was killed by a firebomb, and notorious Klan leader Sam Bowers was charged with the murder, Pickering, then prosecutor in a nearby county, testified that Bowers had a reputation for violence," says the CBS transcript.

"The problem here is not plagiarism as much as it's just more cut and paste stupidity," write The Rude Pundit. "Why? Because, see, for one thing, Bowers was charged with the 1966 killing of Vernon Dahmer and Pickering testified in 1967."

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/More_examples_of_Coulter_borrowing_liberally_0614.html

And, yeah...easy for her, too :)

immediate trial.
Maybe she's never seen the inside of a courtroom. Let's hope that the Jerseygirls, or someone else, can find something to subject her to a lawsuit. Why would her or the publisher's legal team have allowed such a inflammatory statement about them to pass during the vetting procedures?