Is the Portland Press Herald. And, yes, I'm a proud employee & reader of Salon. :-)

When a thing has been said and said well, take it and copy it. Plagiarists at least have the quality of preservation.

It's amazing that a defense like that would work. I'm a scientist and publish papers in journals. Not only do we reference direct text copies, but also if the idea that we put forth has already been suggested by another author. It doesn't matter what the word count is, if the concept being explained has already been published you better reference it.

What is she plagiarizing a planned parenthood brochure for anyways?

I finally have the opening of my novel:

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief and of incredulity...

Sure, it sounds a little familiar, but I only borrowed 33 words. It passes Steve Ross's standard of fair use.

Crown's comments are predictable, but wrong. Of course, they'll deny that its plagiarism, because if it is, they are liable along with Coulter should any of the unattributed actual writers of the words Coulter stole decide to sue her. Someone with more experience than I with copyright law should correct me if I'm wrong, but the number of words only matters if its attributed to the author. At a certain length, even the attribution becomes problematic if permission to use the quote is not obtained.

Of course Ann Coulter is despicable, it's not surprising that she's also a plagiarist. The woman has no redeeming qualities whatever. I'm constantly amazed that people allow her to prattle on via TV, Radio and print. Well, I was pleasantly surprised yesterday morning when listening to Adam Carolla's new radio show on the way to work. Coulter was supposed to call in to plug her book and attempt humor. I'm sort of testing out the Carolla show right now, and I was going to turn it off forever if Adam was nice to this ____. Instead, Ann called in an hour and a half late and had an attitude about it when she got on the air. Adam berated her and hung up and then launched into a semi-tirade against her. Yea! Of course, right after that he slid into a quasi-racist bit with a guest comedian. I guess he's still on probation on m commute.

Cute -- very cute -- mot at the end.

Crown Forum is right in a sense. A certain number of words would have to be repeated before one could consider it plagiarism. That number would be determined by the sense of the words themselves; that is, the sense of the words must indicate that the repetition is more the coincidental. I am allowed to say "I think," without citing Descartes, but not "I think; therfore, I am." Of course, in pointing this out, Crown Forum has sealed the case against itself and Coutler. The number of words Coulter borrowed extends well beyond the boundaries of coincidence.

No reputable publisher would print a book without checking for plagiarism, and no honest publisher would claim that stealing the ideas and words of others does not consitutute plagiarism. A reputable publisher would apologize to the public and withdraw the publication from print. A reputable writer would document her sources rather than claim the ideas and words of others as her own. Random House, to maintain its credibility, should take immediate action with respect to Crown Forum and Coulter if it wants to maintain its credibility as well.

The actions of Crown Forum and Coulter mimic those of the White House. They make up the rules as they go along to justify their illegal actions. They circumvent established laws and proceduresthat interfere with their ideological pursuits while using those same laws to condemn the actions of others. When caught, they try themselves and decide their own cases.

Fortunately, the Supreme Court thinks otherwise about the Bush administration. Coutler is nothing but a cut purse who would be found guilty in Small Claims Court.

According to the dictionary I wrote (okay, Webster wrote it, but why pick nits?), plagiarism is defined as: "1: a piece of writing that has been copied from someone else and is presented as being your own work; 2: the act of plagiarizing; taking someone's words or ideas as if they were your own."

No mention of word count anywhere in the definition.

I also love how her UPI syndicators are now looking into whether she's a plagiarist, presumably because such a notion would violate their journalistic ethics. So as far as UPI is concerned, sleaze, hatemongering, and serial lying--good; plagiarism--bad. Firing Ann Coulter over plagiarism would be like chiding Attila the Hun over his table manners.

It is ok to lie, as long as you are lying about a liberal, defined as "someone who disagrees with Dubya on one or more point", or your target is weaker than you.

It is ok to steal, as long as you steal from a liberal or your target is weaker than you.

It is ok to slander, as long as you are slandering a liberal or your target is weaker than you.

It is ok to cheat, as long as you cheat a liberal or your target is weaker than you.

And so on.

Grieve at his best! Great finish!

but George Bernard Shaw should be getting the credit. Stealing short trash is one thing but stealing great snarks is quite another.

LastLiberalinSC

for determining whether quotation marks are required is five words. Not 25, not 23, but five.

What Coulter has done is commit the "faulty paraphrase" version of plagiarism in which the writer changes a word or two in the original and then passes it off as her own, with or without attribution. Quotation marks are the solution to this problem, though that would require admitting that the passage is not one's own, which appears to be something Coulter is unwilling to do.

While some may not consider this as egregious as simply copying and pasting entire passages, it is plagiarism nonetheless. The only--and I repeat--ONLY information that does not require attribution is stuff considered "common knowledge," such as the date Kennedy was assassinated or when WWII ended.

Intentionally or not (and intent does not matter - plagiarism is plagiarism is plagiarism), Coulter is a plagiarist. She is guilty of intellectual sloth at the very least.

But perhaps we shouldn't expect the likes of Coulter to exercise any level of intellectual rigor. It's much easier to lift the words of others to bolster one's own hate-filled agenda, a practice she has obviously embraced whole-heartedly, than to actually research or think about a topic on one's own.