I mean this sincerely: why?

I mean, given that there’s no chance of any peer reviewed research on a subject like this, it’s *all* anecdotal in some sense.

Ah. So you’ve got anecdotal evidence to support your claim. Gotcha.

I know it’s not hard, that’s not the issue. 

You would lose that bet. 

I found this headline super confusing. Obviously, I then read the article and my confusion cleared up, but I thought it was worth saying.

The sense I got was that precious few few if any get to go to the good place. So its not that Chidi and Tahani are contradictory, but that the implication is you need *both* good intentions *and* good effects, and each of them fails at one of those. 

Not all news photographers are paparazzi. The word has a specific connotation.

Most Paparazzi are, as I understand it, freelance.

In this case when you say "stalker", you mean paparazzo? 

The real issue is the modern corporate focus on short term profits over EVERYTHING, no matter how it shoots you in the foot. It’s technically true that any nigh any business model could in theory work, but if you burn out your people and shovel the same shit you just can't be surprised that it's unsustainable. 

Will this include sunscreen? 

So you have no response then.

What the actual fuck? You’re accusing me of discussing in bad faith? Based on *what*, the fact that you don’t have a reasonable response?

Yawn....so just going to completely have no response but pretend you did one, then? K. Nobody’s going to take that seriously, but if that’s how you salvage your fragile, fragile ego, I suppose I can’t stop you!

Once it’s tweeted out, it’s fully publicly available. That’s a false equivalence.

It’s semi-private, though, don’t you think? That’s why the Giz group, for example, has the “tips@” email addresses, rather thing giving out all the direct emails to particular writers. It’s true that journalists give out direct contact info to anyone they actually want a response from and/or want to be a source, but…

#alldiseasesmatter

But it literally isn’t a bad objection to your point.

You’ve done this numerous times in this thread, so if we’re really going to parse words, then you can see that I didn’t call you a millennial. More importantly, it was just a quip, because you don’t seem to want to bring much levity to the discourse.