You can’t sue for libel for an opinion. You can’t sue for an expert opinion based entirely on disclosed facts. Well, you can, but yippee not supposed to win.

I never go around to finishing S1, but weren’t the Chanels in like jail or TV-version psych ward?

You are buying into the notion that marriage inevitably leads to divorce. It doesn’t. Many marriages don’t lead to divorce at all! And if Person X says Couple A is getting divorced, if they aren’t divorced its fair to criticize them. If Person X says it for awhile “Oh, Steve and Tina are getting divorced”, “OH, did…

Yeah! She never said that! What she said was:

It just seems of all the things to insult tabloids for, them being correct about something seems pretty low on the list, even if they called it early and often. This is a “they were right all along” moment.

I mean, I get it. I get the insulting of tabloids that breathlessly report on imagined scenarios in order to get celebrity fans in checkout lines to impulse buy them.

When I heard he’d had a stripe, it was pretty obvious that this was a “the church decided for him” move.

“No, because I never said punishment is never an end in any cases or for any people.”

I don’t dig super deep into your motivations, except when making the assertion that I don’t believe you said a thing believing it to be true—that is, when I’m accusing you of lying (though I think I’ve also said “Lying to avoid XYZ”, which is one step deeper). I don’t know why you’re lying, I am merely asserting that…

“I too am prepared to see punishment, essentially, as an end, in many cases and for many people.”

I don’t believe that’s your reason for posting bringing it up. In fact, I cannot see your explanation as making sense. Just because you say a thing doesn’t make it plausible. THere is not a reasonable way to read what you’re saying now into what you wrote.

So is this one, where you say that pointing out the loss of appetite is not a thing to fault in his statement:

Actually, the nefarious implication is not this random other quote you pulled of yourself, but rather the one to which I specifically referred, where you said:

Except the points he raised weren’t very important. He wasn’t arguign that rapists are “human”, he literally argued that saying “Brock is upset by the consequences of his actions, therefore he shouldn’t have them” is a legitimate argument to make. He has used trivial truths (“Rapists aren’t 2-dimensional monsters,…

Well, first of all: If I saw these sorts of things in terms of win and lose, I’d have “won” this about 40 comments ago, when he first said something that was transparently false and I called him on it.

What’s interesting is you calling “pointing out I’ve already answered your question” with “shrugging it off”.

I do not blame her for going to the college, I understand. But we in general need to end this “go to the school to let them investigate crime” bullshit.

I already did. You, on the other hand, never actually supported yourself whatsoever except by claiming your “education” which, you admitted, was not in actual law, taught you...stuff, apparently. That lets you say things about the legal system, except you don’t have training in the legal system, and you don’t read…

Wait, OUR congress got something easy but important done and weren’t dickbags about it? I don’t even!

I know basically nothing about that place except I’ve heard of it.