Was it a cup of . . . Starbuck?

Sure—in order to win her case against him, she will have to introduce more evidence than simply her testimony. She would have to do that even if she was 100 percent credible as a victim. I don't think anyone's disputing that.

Even the barest understanding of how any legal proceeding works anywhere tells us that if the person in question swore under oath that no sexual assault occurred, that is strong evidence that no sexual assault occurred.

Even a basic understanding of sexual assault suggests that victims deny it ever happened all the time for all kinds of completely sympathetic reasons—because of embarrassment, because they don't want their family or, in this case, the public to know about a deeply traumatic private experience, because denying it…

Yeah, I mean, if you don't think there's enough evidence to weigh in here, then that's fine. That's a reasonable stance to take in 99 percent of rape accusations before they head to court (Cosby-esque cases being the 1 percent where, sorry, you're just being delusional). Realistically speaking, there's not enough…

She claimed it wasn't about him. If you do some digging, it seems like it's probably about Rob Fusari? (One of the things that makes Kesha's accusations so depressingly believable is that we know the industry is rife with guys who actually do shit like this and are never punished.)

One?

She doesn't have enough evidence to press criminal charges. The burden of proof in a civil suit is lower.

That's because in the vast majority of acquaintance rape cases, there is no proof. Unless the assault is exceptionally violent, what kind of proof could there possibly be?

I'm just following the case diligently and wondering why people are so quick to pick the side of someone who has already lied once regarding this very accusation?

Yeah on the gendered stuff. It's totally possible to not like pop and not be sexist—or to not like hip-hop and not be racist, or to not like country and not be classist —but when you're going on rants about how X genre is inherently inferior to Y genre (“Y genre” almost always being rock) because Reasons, it's…

The Madonna who hasn't had a Top 40 #1 since the year 2000? She's largely moved out of the pop/Top 40 world and into club/dance music—which is not a bad choice as she gets older, since it allows her to use her strengths (making catchy songs) without drawing attention to potential weaknesses (less emphasis on music…

But if "twisting the author's words" actually retains the author's original intent—maintaining the idea that the cover artist is singing to the gender they're actually attracted to, rather than one they're not—then . . . while the words change, what the song is about doesn't. Whereas if we have a guy who has always…

It's pretty clear from her Twitter feed that he got her permission—I think she was a fan of his long before this happened. I can't imagine why she'd want to sue him, anyway—not only does she get royalties off every copy sold, she gets her music exposed to a completely different audience that might then go back and…

He pays royalties to the songwriters just like he would with any other recorded cover song—I think Swift will be making around 20 cents per copy sold.

People say this, but I . . . don't really get it? Like, if you're really trying to make the song your own and inhabit it the way the original artist did, and you're not gay, then singing a homosexual love song is going to feel completely different (less genuine, less realistic, less lived-in)—both to you and your…

Yeah, I was most excited to see what he was going to do with my favorite songs on the album, but as it turns out I actually ended up more impressed by what he did with some of the ones I liked less—"All You Had to Do Is Stay" is one of my least favorite songs on the original album, but probably my favorite of the…

It's a freaking genius marketing move on both their parts—I can't get over how smart it is. He gets a whole influx of new, young fans who'll continue to buy his albums for at least another decade; she gets the royalties and his "legitmacy" rubs off on her. And given that she probably only has one or two true pop…

She doesn't care about "nobodies" making a few bucks off T-shirts. She cares that she can keep Target/Walmart/etc. from making knockoffs of her tour gear and undercutting her. In order to enforce the trademark against big companies, she has to make an occasional-but-loud show of force against smaller ones. Otherwise…

Oh god, I remember when PC came out and they billed it as a soap that would focus more on the hospital side of things, the way the original GH had. That sounded promising, so I tuned in—only to be smacked in the face with all this ridiculous vampire stuff.