even if she did skip it for that reason, it seems fine. i’ve definitely skipped out on work meetings that have nothing to do with me.

there are a group of writers here that employ this sort of “shtick” for clicks, and that’s really... it. would not surprise me if she didn’t watch it at all, or only had it on as background noise, based on this assessment (and the beauty of it is that it doesn’t matter either way). it’s this kind of stuff that helps…

it’s sad that the only thing that matters to you about the donation is how much the donor did or didn’t suffer in order to give it.

some people are happy knowing that the efforts to develop a virus now has more millions to use from a donor who really didn’t have to do shit, and that hope and happiness outweighs (but does not eliminate) the negative feelings about the donor, wealth accumulation, or the amount donated vs. the amount of wealth held…

it’s only tangentially related but i had a boss who claimed to be a dog person but also openly talked about being a fan of Michael Vick... ? coincidentally the same boss that admitted to searching for social media profiles of employees and applicants to glimpse + judge their character.

no worries :)

canceling them probably frees up time for the bookstores to host something else that people actually will attend, though. (then again, it may be too short notice to book anything else, i’m not sure.)

asking the wrong person; i just responded to a discussion that started from something someone else posted.

A girl dad is a man who discovers the significance and abilities of women only after having a daughter. All this despite theoretically having both a mother and a wife and interactions with other human women throughout their lives. When a girl dad finally holds his girl daughter for the first time, he is bathed in the…

acting like there’s nothing wrong with it, no way it could be bad, is also pretty silly. age differences mean much more when people are that young, you know that. 

okay, consider my comment addressed to them too. 

either both do or neither do, really, but there's a stark difference in the way people here are reacting now vs. then.

blogs across this site were gleefully quick to do the same to John McCain following his death from brain cancer, so i hope you find that equally as outrageous and distasteful. if not, then the problem here isn’t the timing of the comments relative to someone’s death, it’s simply that you’re willing to dismiss part of…

“she was just legal enough to consent when i pursued her!” is not the kind of primary defense anyone should hope to have used on their behalf. if that’s your best and last resort, you’re already in some questionable waters.

it’s rich seeing the number of “not the time, bro!” responses to this sentiment from the same crowd/group of sites that couldn’t wait to immediately shit all over John McCain when he died. if it’s tasteless or “the wrong time” to bring up someone’s misdeeds immediately after one person’s death, it’s tasteless for…

women dying? not in my fiction!

this argument often has merit (see: Daredevil’s Bullseye literally driving around with a frozen dead girl) but it’s just as often an argument that women can never die or otherwise be fallible in fiction, or that it’s always, unquestionably, rooted in hatred of women instead of being a…

would read.

And why would either a) children or b) a third party have a better recollection of the events than the adults who were actually there at the time?

Tilli is stepmom; bio-mom found out about the situation and reported it. the article only lists the children as “his children” because they are not Tilli’s, biologically.

i think at least one distinction is whether or not the parents stop bumping uglies when the kid walks in, or decide that’s the moment to keep going and let the kid bear witness to it while they explain sex and why it’s beautiful and natural.