+2 minutes

I admit it — you got me here. Very well played.

+1

+1, for the commitment as much as the performance.

Rejecting her right to bodily autonomy? I propose that her right doesn't actually depend on the content of anonymous internet comments.

Nicely stated.

Scott Raab sends dishes back to the kitchen...from the buffet.

This was damned interesting.

+1

"Well, if you're not going to negotiate at all on the Pammy, then I guess just give me the Kim Basinger instead. Geez!"

And so it came to pass. +1

I live in the real world. That should be enough to convince anyone that "flat-out dishonesty" is completely consistent with easily observable human behavior.

Actually dishonesty is quite consistent with being a "human being." Let's not go inventing our own hypotheses and proofs out of whole cloth here.

Okay. That's a pretty substantive argument. At least your reasoning identifies the interests at stake and proposes how to balance them. Nicely done.

Well, to comment on that with any confidence, you'd have to be privy to the contract terms and the original negotiations, wouldn't you?

When discussing what anyone "deserves" in this case, wouldn't the smart thing be to say that the confidentiality agreement still controls?

Promoted for making a thought-provoking point.

+1

This is very intriguing. Can you elaborate any further? And what are your mom's views on the NFL?

Yes. Vagabondella has it cold.