Okay, thanks.

It was a terrible, terrible movie, and if there's never another hit like it, American cinema is fortunate.

Did you apologize to Jay 1978? He's going after me down thread as a contrarian, and claiming that unlike me, you apologized to him "after reading my comments and wound up mostly agreeing with me because he listened to the conversation instead of just being a contrarian." Do you consider that an accurate…

Lol, you're just frustrated. Sorry not sorry, not a contrarian.

I didn't know Warhol ever had sex with anyone. I thought he was kind of touch-averse.

Lucky him. Wish Rob Marshall had done the same. (The stage version is amazing, and has almost zero connection to the film.)

You come off as insincere, yourself. You say you agree with the articles I provided, but those articles say differences in brain formation between genders exist, and lead to different choices, yet you continue to say "there's just no studies supporting the e-mail author's position." Then you say "Ah, but they never…

Damn that sucks…and is completely unsurprising.

Not much to consider in this piece.

I've never said you're wrong. I said there is evidence that supports ideas you don't agree with. I've given you links to a couple. You know yourself there are whole books on the subject. All I've said is that there is an alternative position to yours. And when I won't change my opinion that there are studies and…

Which, in fact, you don't know he did. But keep harping on.

There is zero insincerity in my posts. I know, I wrote them. Read that into them if you have to to feel better about yourself.

No shit on my part. I've never said the guy is right, I've never said people like you who disagree with him are wrong. I've said there are two sides, and cartooning him up into a basement-dweller draining the companies resources with his email is a childish reaction.

Except you keep hammering on it, so evidently you believe it, or for some reason want to believe it. Because then he's not just wrong, he's "bad" in some way, deserving of punishment, and it's important for people you think are wrong to be bad and deserving of punishment.

Yup, if I don't eventually agree with you, I'm being "contrarian." I'm sorry you seem incapable of recognizing how self-serving and narcissistic that approach to conversation is, to have to write me off as "intellectually dishonest" for not coming around to agreeing with you. Rather than my being, you know,…

You've no evidence he stopped doing his job, of course. You're just eager to penalize him for writing something you disagree with.

As I hated the last season, but was a fan of the series, I'm all for Dan's resurrection. It's heartbreaking that Glenn Quinn can't return as well.

So it's the old "you won't listen to 'reason' (i.e. 'concede that I'm right or defer to my expertise') so I can't treat you as a person of intelligence or integrity" spiel. Exactly what is wrong with communication in this country.

He never asked women to do that. Most men I know work to justify their own existence.

Who are you to decide what they are supposed to be doing when, and how do you know he didn't compose it on his own time?