Perfect response.

So it's 'traditional' for women to want to have male children? I'm confused.

So if she wanted a girl you would have said, "As if duchess Kate wasn't boring enough she wants a girl..."?

1. So, you'll continue a conversation about how you won't respond to valid points, but you won't ever respond to valid points? That's seems odd. If you're trying to punish me, I guess it's working because I'm confused now.

1. Basically, I spiked the discourse, so you're punting?

First, please explain to me how this is "trolling". A comment isn't "trolling" because you disagree with it.

It's not really "Meh," though, is it? You threw away your vote. Unless, of course, you're stridently for rampant violations of civil liberties, greater militarization of the police force, an increased wealth gap between whites and minorities, empty lip-service on climate change, et al.

Unless you live in a true swing-state, there was no reason not to.

You should have voted for Dr. Jill Stein, the candidate of the Green Party.

A previously out-of-work recent Emerson graduate.

But see, I say X-Mas BECAUSE it takes the Christ out of Christmas. Don't ruin that for me!

Agreed. I rarely order delivery because I can't justify my laziness being worth $2 + $5 for tip (or whatever). I know I'm barking up a cliche here, but I think we're due for some tip reform in this country. I don't know why (well, I do: big business) we can't all just be paid a living wage and let companies charge…

I'm pretty sure at chains (like Domino's) the delivery charges go straight to the franchise, probably at expense to tips too. I guess that's the type of place I was thinking of when I expressed skepticism about how much a driver is capable of making.

I hear ya. I'm mostly surprised that he took you refusing to give him the information as an opportune time to ask you out. Maybe he was playing the long game and intended on acquiring it again over drinks. "So what's your coverage like?"

Do delivery charges go to the driver?

Right...

Could have been, I guess, but it reads as though she was trying to get out of paying for the damage she caused on a technicality. After he asked her out, she's well within her rights to refuse contact with him, but preemptively refusing to give out information a second time struck me as odd.

Why didn't you want to give him the insurance information again?

You don't think they did it on purpose? Even if we suppose for a second it was just an unfortunate accident, they only donated the money to avoid a legal battle they would assuredly lose.

Oh, did Culliver minor in LGBT studies at Carolina?