Put another way, you think it *does* make sense for me to say you “enjoy” Polly Klaas’s death if you derive a benefit from the Three Strikes law.

If by “put another way” you mean “saying something completely different from, and in fact contradictory to, what you just said,” then perhaps so. Otherwise, no. As I’ve repeatedly pointed out, you’re not “enjoying” something just because you derive some benefit from it. For the relevant sense of the word “enjoy” to apply, that benefit has to be joy.

It’s worth noting that “derive a benefit from” does exist as a legitimate definition of the word, e.g., one can say foreign diplomats “enjoy” immunity from prosecution without suggesting that they get some kick out of that status, or even that they’re aware of it. However, I have not argued that this sense of the word is relevant to the Coulter controversy, since it’s clear she was talking about deriving joy, not deriving any random benefit. Else her statement that “I have never seen people enjoying their husband’s death so much” would not have been a criticism, it wouldn’t have made any real point at all. [It also would have been flat-out wrong, as women "enjoy" large inheritances all the time.]

And you analogize *that* to enjoying your spouse’s death.

Put another way, you think it *does* make sense for me to say you “enjoy” Polly Klaas’s death if you derive a benefit from the Three Strikes law.

That doesn’t sound strange to you at all. It sounds as natural as saying a drug addict enjoys taking drugs.

Uh-huh.

[Cue Twilight Zone music]

1. I don’t believe Rall’s clarification. Just like I don’t buy Coulter’s clarification. Both pretended to have said things different from what they really said.

To a degree, that’s true; both say they said something at odds with what they really did say. However, Coulter’s clarification is a plausible explanation of what she meant, while Rall’s is not.

You are redefining “enjoy” to mean “derive a secondary benefit from” …

No, I’m not. The other guy you keep confusing me with is doing that. That definition does exist, but is irrelevant to the Coulter discussion. My point is that enjoy means “derive pleasure from.” You seem to think that the pleasure must be derived directly from X for its use to be valid. I argue that it can be indirect, as long as the causal link between the two is clear. I have no problem saying that millions of Americans “enjoy” shooting heroin or snorting cocaine. Presumably, you’d have a problem with that statement, since nobody really “enjoys” sticking granules up his nose or getting poked with a needle. All they truly enjoy is the high that soon follows. Liars!

3. Re waiting for years: you say it’s more sensitive, Rall says it’s less courageous. I think it’s an asshole comment whether you wait or not, but I see the distinction.

It sounds to me like you only half get it. Sensitivity is only part of the timing issue, accuracy being the other. Going after a crime victim for appearing on TV once or twice after a horrible tragedy is one thing, and going after someone for hogging the spotlight years after her 15 minutes are up is another. On February 28, 2002, maybe Rall thought Marianne Pearl and Lisa Beamer were about to become professional grievers in much the way the Jersey Girls ultimately did. Maybe he thought that – but if he did, he was wrong.

Between this, accusing me of redefining “enjoy” to exclude “joy,” and pretending there’s no difference between dumping on someone for allegedly acting untoward a few months after a tragedy vs. persisting with similar conduct for years . . .

1. I don’t believe Rall’s clarification. Just like I don’t buy Coulter’s clarification. Both pretended to have said things different from what they really said.
2. You are redefining “enjoy” to mean “derive a secondary benefit from” which, in context, is a ludicrous usage that defies common sense, as the Polly Klaas example shows. If you think I can say “Xrlq enjoys Polly Klaas’s death” without sounding like an idiot, then you tell me who is going to great lengths to avoid admitting he’s wrong about something.
3. Re waiting for years: you say it’s more sensitive, Rall says it’s less courageous. I think it’s an asshole comment whether you wait or not, but I see the distinction.

Or, it’s an ultra-precise way of saying that Rall only suggested it, while Coulter flat-out said it.

Of course, if you think that accusing a person of smiling, cracking jokes and laughing out loud, and then drawing a picture of that same person smiling “only suggests” that she’s happy. And that calling two (or, if you believe Rall’s implausible lie about Ted “Olsen” being among them, three) individuals “the scourage of the media” is not an attack on them personally, but on a “media phenomenon.”

Between this, accusing me of redefining “enjoy” to exclude “joy,” and pretending there’s no difference between dumping on someone for allegedly acting untoward a few months after a tragedy vs. persisting with similar conduct for years, I’m truly amazed what lengths you’ll go to in order to defend a silly comparison, rather than simply “OK, guys, you got me there; I still don’t like Ann Coulter, but she’s not equivalent to Ted Rall.” If I didn’t know better, I’d be tempted to think you were in the same line of work as Mike Nifong. Oh wait…

Or, it’s an ultra-precise way of saying that Rall only suggested it, while Coulter flat-out said it.

Whee, this is fun.

He suggested it, Coulter flat-out said it.

That’s just an ultra-lame way of saying that Coulter wrote a book, while Rall drew a cartoon.

You’re reduced at this point to questioning the timing. Rall spoke truth but should have waited a few years before portraying the relatives of terror victims as heartless, soulless cretins, as Coulter did.

The timing was a major factor in itself, but it’s not the only one. Another, which you also don’t seem to care about, is accuracy vs. inaccuracy, and timing plays into that distinction as well. If Rall had waited so much as one year before telling his “truth,” he’d have had no one left to attack because they had already faded from the public eye.

He suggested it, Coulter flat-out said it.

You’re reduced at this point to questioning the timing. Rall spoke truth but should have waited a few years before portraying the relatives of terror victims as heartless, soulless cretins, as Coulter did.

Of course, Rall just says that shows his courage — speaking truth when it was unpopular.