I agreed with you until reaching the last paragraph. Kevin's first death lasted for eight hours. He wasn't breathing and was buried. The theory that he was experiencing a near death hallucination doesn't account for any of that.

It's interesting that you feel free to speak on what O'Neal should and shouldn't say while simultaneously criticizing him for doing the same to Maher. The fact is that O'Neal has not limited or restricted Maher's speech legally or otherwise.

But this outrage culture of getting offended at every joke or statement is out of control.

Does that mean that O'Neal should not find it offensive? Saying to Maher "That joke is racist and you shouldn't say that", which is basically what O'Neal is doing, does not infringe on Maher's legal right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from criticism or freedom from people telling you…

This PC crap is going to create a bunch more republican voters.

Is it your opinion that Maher's legal right to freedom of speech means that the content of his speech is appropriate?

The first season was a mixed bag for me, but I loved the show from season 2 on.

Since time jumps were also frequent in The Tudors, I assume that it's just a Michael Hirst thing.

I think that The Longest Ride also underperformed.

I wonder if the show wouldn't have been a better fit for Showtime? Look how long they kept on Weeds and Nurse Jackie. Homeland is still going.

She was very good in Ask Me Anything, but for whatever reason she refused to promote it and as a result it got little notice.

I won't be watching it again (the second rape was too much for me), but my family and I loved it and thought it improved on the novel.

LOL! That really wasn't my intention.

That quote is legalise, "Not Guilty" as opposed to innocent.

That doesn't answer either of my questions, but I'd like to explore this some more anyway.

I understand why you would assume otherwise, but my question was not intended as a comeback. It was an honest question.

That's a clever reply I suppose, but I really was asking a question. Is it possible for someone to watch the video (the evidence) and conclude that a rape did not occur without simultaneously perpetrating rape culture? Is deciding that the accused is guilty the only way to not perpetuate rape culture in this case?

Personally, I can't watch Forensic Files and similar shows anymore without them taking an emotional toll. I don't watch this show either, but I'd much rather watch trash than be reminded of how easily our lives can be snuffed out.

What if somehow you watch the tape and you conclude that no assault occurred. Would you be believed? I'm just wondering what exactly people who have already decided that a rape occurred would need to be convinced otherwise. Would every single one of these people need to watch the tape in order to be convinced that…

Would you trust the third party if their conclusion was the same as the studio?