You should click on that link. It was, uh, not a credible source.

I thought the comment you’re defending was the stupidest thing I’ve ever read, but then I read yours.

Anyone at Jezebel want to examine what, precisely, is so inherently comical about illiteracy and the likely reasons for it that it’s so hilarious to you to imagine that someone you don’t like can’t read? Because I don’t get the joke, no matter how many times you beat it into the ground.

I genuinely feel bad for them. At a real publication they’d have editors protecting them from their own foolishess, but you’re right: the editorial line seems to be to prioritize irritating their readers over enlightening them.

Understood, and understandable. My apologies!

What I meant was whether the kids with with Harry and Meaghan in London and needed Meaghan to look after them, which doesnt make sense if she was initially going to go. They’re making the argument that Meaghan is getting different treatment than Kate even though she had the same reason as Kate to not be there, even…

“I haven’t fact checked it at all, but I’m not sure if Meghan and Harry have kids? And even if they did, it seems impossible for anyone to determine if those kids are much younger than Kate’s and might still very much need to be with their mother?”

You are *remarkably* patient.

“Elizabeth became a Girl Guide, a British corollary to Girl Scouts (without the cookies).”

Inertia, not affection, has kept the royals in the Canadian constitution. Outside of an eccentric fringe, no one cares about them.

The guy who lost his primary for reelection months ago, because the party rejected him? Partisans are so weird.

Great - a New York based writer went to a show that only people in New York can see, and wrote about it like it’s of general interest. Must have a pretty universal story right?

Jezebel takes their cues from Twitter: if people are still making the joke there, they’ll continue making it here. If someone gets enough retweets saying it’s played out or inappropriate, they’ll stop. That’s Thought Leadership.

It is a very long way from noting that there are family predispositions to heart disease or below-average incidences of Alzheimers and using very normal colloquialisms of “strengths and weakness” to calling for such traits to be eliminated from populations by selective breeding. It’s not a reasonable extrapolation.

Two things - the question he was asked *by Yee* (the host) was “is this safe for this person.” On the narrow question of genetic risk, it is.

That seems like a fairly innocuous observation to me, if a little too colloquial: what am I missing?

“I guess you could find examples of a person saying anything.”

I do not insult, I observe.

You’re (self-described) intelligent as well as (self-described) handsome? *And* you (self-described) understand women? Wow, you really are the complete package. I guess I was wrong calling you a narcissist.

Ah, the 7 paragraph response to the 3 paragraph comment: props for honesty on filibustering, if nothing else. Let’s try to get you to 12! Twenty’s probably not out of reach.