Oh man, I am bummed I missed this because I have a very important question after rewatching the originals:

The final moments of Sleep Tight - a phenomenal Spanish horror movie/thriller. I saw it once, three years ago, and it still haunts me.

Anyone who balks at being asked to provide evidence for steadfast claims is not to be trusted. I’m a big believer in getting source articles. Whenever someone pulls the “why are you questioning me” angle, it automatically undermines their arguments.

Got it. I appreciate that you vetted them and your other sources. They are just SO OFTEN taken as fact by people that it drives some of us a little batty to see them in a science article. When people see them quoted multiple times on Jezebel with no mention of their unsavory past, they think EWG is a legitimate…

Absolutely. You should no more trust a random commenter on the internet (i.e. me) than them.

I’ll thank you not to use the c-word in my presence. Even reading it affects the levels of toxins in my blood.

I absolutely did not discount the harm and I am well aware of the toxicity of formaldehyde. I just don’t know the specifics about concentrations in beauty products so I wouldn’t presume to comment on the level of risk.

Sure thing. Sorry, I was on my phone before. I apologize in advance for the onslaught.

This is all really important and I’m glad you’re drawing attention to it but please please stop quoting the Environmental Working Group in articles about science and health. They are notorious science denialists who ignore vetted, vigorously reviewed and researched facts in favor of flashy headlines — it’s like…

Just out of curiosity — do you kill insects?

The statistic is actually that animal testing only translates 8% of the time (link here) but that is specifically for cancer studies. If you have similar statistics on efficacy of other types of studies I’d be very interested to see them.

Yo. Are you seriously banned or just gray? Inquiring and potentially apoplectic minds want to know.

Trick question because DUH.

What is better? The satire in the post itself or the fact that people are being walking, talking satires of internet commenters?

I’ll admit I was horrified to see your username attached to that comment.

I am roughly 1000% sure that’s the joke.

Yes I know. Shown it by Lee. As in she made the characterization.

I don’t think what I said lines up with your “If it’s quality literature, most of the characterization is in the reader’s hands” but we may just be having some kind of miscommunication. We can probably settle on Mockingbird is great literature and the Atticus of yesteryear is a stand up fellow.

I disagree. A talented author doesn’t need to explicitly state character traits, but you glean them from the work. That’s how we get who Atticus is. Her writing of his character.

The success of TKAM means she could have submitted this at literally any time and had it published. She didn’t. Also, I said “don’t think” not “I know this beyond a shadow of a doubt.”