Why would you reply to me with that, exactly? I never said nor implied that mental injury wasn’t a real injury.

Hmm, well, if I thought that was happening, I might agree. But “overly parsing”?

Yes, people are telling this guy not to pass harsh and unfair judgement on other people, other people who are trying to help the victims of this crime who have huge expenses of having done the right thing. He didn’t just say what he felt—he said people who were helping the people who were physically injured were morall…

Look, I certainly don’t want to diminish mental trauma. That said:

I think it’s immensely, immensely and morally wrong how much money we have gotten as opposed to the money, love, kindness that has been given to that little girl.

Do the hinges feel sturdier? I’ve owned every iteration of the DS except the NewDS, and all of them have had hinges that wound up cracking with the exception of the OG and the Lite.

There is also a whole page devoted to Trump’s Moleskine notebook, where she “jots down miscellaneous things I want to accomplish”

 I’m not trying to be a jerk, I promise, but... you took a stand based on a misconception, right? You wanted the joke to be more than what the actual creators wanted it to be, right?

 Oh, gotcha. Thanks for the answer!

In all seriousness, because I don’t know: why is it subpar? Isn’t it the same 22gb soft cap throttling as Verizon?

Ive just started watching, and while I’m already familiar with these topics, I didn’t feel he was condescending, that’s just his manner of speech. The show seems bite sized, but I feel like there’s value in that, too.

While the point you make is true, the comment you’re replying to was to arghlbargle, and arghlbargle is not engaged in an honest discussion about communication, but rather transparent tone trolling.

I’ve been waiting for a vaporizer post!

I’ve been waiting for a vaporizer post!

Why would anyone pay for it? It’s not like they would profit if they won the appeal. All it would mean was gawker wouldn’t pay.

Evidence of related precedent, which is how courts rule, because of a principle called stare decisis. It really doesn’t stand to reason. First because, yes, Florida. Second because the venue shopping was obvious. Third because this case has extensive related precedent the judge ignored. Remember how the judge tried to…

Eh, I always hold out hope. My perennial inability to let things drop is a failing. But if I do engage again later, it’s not because you’re not right.

Incidentally, appeals don’t go to a jury, they go to judges. The case should have been dismissed, as Gawker asked for. As a matter of law, the finding was incorrect, as evidenced by all previous precedent. I’m very certain an appeals court would have corrected those errors of law.

“We both know outing someone is bullying, and that it requires an imbalance of power. The definition is not being disputed.” Actually, we don’t! Nice try, though. Nothing quite like “I’m going to expressly say you think this, even though it’s abundantly clear that’s a lie” as an argument tactic.

No, I haven’t ignored anything. Seriously, your entire argument is, as far as I can see, Gawker did wrong (arguable assertion), therefore what Thiel did was right, with a corrollary that you don’t like Thiel, but that doesn’t matter, and the implication that Gawker deserved the outcome because of other actions.

Now, I asked several times for a definition. You still haven’t provided one. Outing someone is often, or even usually, bullying. But when the word doesn’t apply, it doesn’t apply.