Last month I detailed how Lott posted at least six and probably ten five-star reviews of his books to Amazon.com. Well, it may be that Lott isn't the only conservative author who does this. Someone posting as "A reader from New York, NY" (which is where Coulter lives), has posted many five-star reviews of Ann Coulter's books at Amazon.com. Each of these reviews is actually a detailed response to points raised in negative reviews. The writing style is similar to Coulter's and the reviewer seems to have an uncanny insight into Coulter's thought processes. The Nameless Blogger has the story.
Now, it is possible that Coulter has a fan in NY who has copied her style and has made a hobby of anonymously defending her in the Amazon.com and that fan knows how Coulter thinks, but I suspect that the "reader from New York, NY" is actually Coulter.
Update: The "reader from New York, NY" is denying everything:
I wrote that review (I am an Amazon customer dating back to 1999) and I am not Ann Coulter. The behind the scenes techies at Amazon can verify this (if they're so inclined). And, except as a reader of her books, I have no connection to Coulter whatsoever. Try getting the facts, instead of inventing them off the top of your head, before shooting off your mouth.
I tried to see how many reviews of Coulter's books the "reader from New York, NY" had posted and counted 36 five-star reviews before I got too bored to continue.
What's with you guys and conspiracies? I'm sure she's reviewing her own book. Liberals have a field day on Amazon, I've noticed multiple reviews of the same liberal item by the same people countless times. I only review items I've purchased (i.e. read), yet I'm positive the majority of liberals who do their knee-jerk reviews don't.
(Have you read any of Coulter's work?)
It's not a conspiracy, and no one here said it was. A "conspiracy" requires more than one person "conspiring". Coulter posting reviews of her own books, claiming to be
"a reader in NY" isn't conspiracy.
It is, however, fundamentally dishonest, and she should be called on it. As should anyone else that engages in such sock-puppetry. Coulter has the opportunity, denied to all others, of posting an "Author's review" at Amazon. If she feels the need to follow-up to other reviews, she should make it clear that it isn't just a random person that is responding, but the original author. That's just basic honesty, a trait Coulter appears to lack.
At the same time, someone posting multiple reviews of someone elses work is only dishonest if they change names to make appear as if it's several different people posting.
Explaining honesty to a wingnut is like casting pearls before swine, I know.
You gotta love the wing nut. Evidence is presented to show that Ann Coulter may be reviewing her own books under a name not her own. Jettison, in her defense, brings up the possibility that Liberals don't read the books they review!
Man not only did you miss the forest for the trees, you missed the trees.
I realize this will be hard for Jettison to understand, but one has nothing to do with the other.
Why is it so hard for wing nuts to debate in a logical manner? If you are going to defend Coulter, defend her. Don't bring up strawman arguments which will impress no one but other wing nuts.
Strikes me that all you've established is that "Reader from New York" is a Coulter fan. NOT that he or she is Coulter herself.
What are the 36 five star that Coulter wrote? It would would be useful to see what you found
First of all, I doubt Coulter would review her own work as there has been no evidence at all to support that hypothesis. Second of all, even if she did, who cares? Her work is excellent and that would not change if she decided to write a review of her book. As Ms. Coulter says, "At least when conservatives rant, there's a point"
A few days ago, I too posted a negative review of Ann Coulter's latest book "Treason." Then, "A reader from New York, NY" falsely claimed that I had used a strawman argument in their 5-star rebuttal to mine. I wasn't even sure that the site would allow me to post another review to point out "A reader's" error, but after writing one I found that the second posting was allowed. Again this person took me to task, this time arguing with my choice for one word. The similarities to Miss Coulter's writing style in the second rebuttal were far too great to ignore, however, as well as claims to knowldege of what the author was thinking and that I had taken the author's quote "out of context."Finding that this person had tried to rebutt many negative reviews, I ran a search through Yahoo and saw that I was not the first to consider the possibility that "A reader" was really Ann Coulter.Then, I called Amazon and asked them if there was any mechanism in place to prevent an author from reviewing their own books. They said that there wasn't any mechansim in place to prevent self-reviews. After giving Amazon the details of my suspicions, I pointed out that only they were in a position to positively identify this reviewer, and that they should probably refer this matter to their legal department. Last night, I received an e-mail from Amazon thanking me for bringing this matter to their attention, and stating that the inappropriate reviews had been erased from their database. They also said that some of those reviews might still pop up for about 3-5 days, but would be gone when all the cached database copies were updated.
Michael Vander Wielen
Neenah, WI
(reviewing as "litemike1")
What are the 36 five star that Coulter wrote? It would would be useful to see what you found
What are the 36 five star that Coulter wrote? It would would be useful to see what you found
What are the 36 five star that Coulter wrote? It would would be useful to see what you found