Sorry. Been there, done that - and it's a lot different than most newspaper accounts.

The news articles are usually ex parte accounts of verdicts that aggrieved someone or other. Their accuracy can't be trusted. I imagine there'll be a whole spate of articles on the New Hampshire case, that will miss the point - perhaps deliberately - that conviction of the major felonies would have resulted in a…

I give juries a great deal of credit, based on a great deal of experience. (The one glaring exception is fishbowl cases, where the heat causes everyone to doubt his or her common sense. This is why trials should not be televised). You think that the women seated on a jury somehow take leave of their senses,…

No, it is not effective in the least. Juries are made up of ordinary people, of women who wear alluring clothes, and men with wives, daughters, and girlfriends who do, and they know perfectly well that such stuff is not an invitation to rape.

Everyone these days sees through that. It was hackneyed, ineffective defense even 40 years ago.

I think there's some semantic confusion here. I don't think that Ms. Hyndes means for a moment that she shares any MORAL blame for being victimized by a sexual assault.

One of them could have tased the guy, or put a sleep hold on him. Numbers are required if you want to avoid those methods.

Since the value of Man of Steel 1 is in some doubt, I'm a little surprised at a Man of Steel 2.

It wasn't a question of belief, more congratulatory. It does catch the eye.

Interesting handle.

One man's opinion, but I gave up some time ago on that incredibly bloated, logorrheic series. It goess on and on and on and on and on and . . .

What you have not done is identify the nefarious Men in Black that cause this. My own thought is that you refuse to credit market dynamics. Amanda Seyfried is a good, but replaceable actress without any bargaining power at all. Add to that the fact that movies like 'Dear John' are chick flicks, with a far greater…

Oh, I don't want to. Let's let it play out naturally.

It's idiotic to suggest an explanation based on biological differences. But it's equally idiotic to suggest that some sinister cabal somewhere underpays women.

What I'll say is that there is NOT a gender pay gap because some invisible panel somewhere decides women should be paid less. It has to do with who draws people to the box office, who's bankable and who isn't, who has muscle and who doesn't.

I love that word 'equivalent'. Who defines it, exactly? The producers? The paying audience? You?? Do you really think there is some invisible bureacracy somewhere that sets pay grades for the different sexes?

Seyfried can go become a secretary, if she wants equal pay for equal work.

Well, that may be in fungible markets, but performance art is not one of them.

Per another post of mine, these are simply not fungible labor hours. Every one is idiosyncratic. And many are separately negotiated. She may have a lousy agent, or she may have wanted the role so badly that salary was secondary.

All I'm saying is that she is paid what the market will bear. To say theatrical roles are like fungible labor, every hour worth the same, is simply ridiculous.