Yeah, but my point was that these organizations have these strict rules about what reviewers are allowed to do because there is a glaring and direct conflict of interest when you allow the reviewers to keep the products they’re reviewing.

For the entirety of their marriage? I dunno what tabloids you’re reading, but the ones I’m reading portrayed them as a normal couple who had a bump at the beginning (Brad cheating on Jen), Angelina getting cancer there was no drama in their life. Sure the movie they did together sucked, but that’s not marriage drama.…

People who write reviews professionally don’t get to keep the products they’re reviewing. Organizations like NYT, WaPo, Wired, etc. have strict rules that the writer is not allowed to buy stock in the company and can’t keep any of the stuff they review. It all belongs to the company to be given away at raffles or…

Doesn’t the warmth of the lights mess with the critters that swimming in there?

Then maybe you need to go volunteer at a cancer hospital and come back to tell us how those people are just looking for “something to rail against”. It’s incredibly demeaning and insulting to people who have been touched by that disease to bring up “The Secret”-type psychobabble.

Read what that poster wrote.

He was looking “AIDS’y” for Chelsea’s wedding when she bamboozled him into being a third level vegan. Now he looks fatter and more normal because he’s eating a regular balanced diet.

How would that calling out go?

I dunno, I think the family knew beforehand. The French village people where they have their fancy compound knew like 2 months ago when they put it up for sale.

Wow, you’re bringing up cancer?

Just you wait until a weirdo really does dress up as a clown and kidnaps one of those little jerks. Nobody will believe them until it’s toooo laaaaate.

I doubt they use email. I didn’t watch the whole Scientology documentary, but from the little I have seen of it, they have nuclear-proof bunkers housing hard copies of Hubbard’s books. They have massive real estate holdings because they have hard copy files of their interrogation sessions (or whatever they’re called…

Unless you work by yourself, you are part of a team. People who hog credit with juvenile “first!” claims do not make good team players. Yeah, we all know you were first to come up with the idea. You were first to get the newest iPhone, first in your class, first to churn your own butter and first to make kids. Go you.

The AP did not say that half the donors met with her. They said of the people she met with, half were donors.

Or maybe you’re disliked because people who say “first!” are unlikeable, and people named Darlene who say that are doubly unlikeable.

Do you know what 400 of your coworkers look like? How about 400 people from your college graduating class?

No, you’re arguing that in effect the AP was wrong because they looked at the wrong population. You’re arguing that the correct population to examine is the donor population not the meetings population.

The relevant population is all people with whom Clinton met with as Secretary of State, and what percentage of those people were also Clinton Foundation donors.

No, Rslwn is wrong because it uses the same deceitful reasoning as tobacco companies use to argue that smoking doesn’t cause lung cancer.