I would be fair and impartial. Who knows, if the evidence is right, maybe significant punitives are in the cards!

Yes, but the point of damages is to be compensated for a loss actually suffered. I can’t see how the incident, as egregious as it may have been (if everything she alleges is true), cost her $75 million. Sure, she may also be entitled to punitive damages, but, typically, those are left to the discretion of the…

Because I like watching Vikings on the History Channel and World’s Strongest Man competitions, I knew that and do not judge you for (and, in fact appreciate) your clarification or area of study.

I’ve had a lot of friends complain recently about the fumble out of the end zone rule and its inconsistency. Never occurred to them (or me) to fix it in the other direction. I am not sure I agree with you, but you may be a genius.

So much promise, such terrible execution. Like a lot of Syfy shows.

Technically, yea.

Yea, I watched the video. She says her “colleague” in “sports media,” which is to say, she’s not calling herself a reporter, she’s simply calling herself someone who works in sports media.

She says reporters are her colleagues in sports media. She doesn’t say she’s a reporter.

Amen.

I agree that economics plays a big part. Yes, a high level CEO possibly also keeps his job. Doesn’t make it right.

I get what you’re saying, but other than her saying “I was going to talk about x ...” I don’t think she really tried to make it seem extemporaneous. I don’t think anyone watching is under any illusion it’s really off the cuff. In any case, doesn’t detract from her larger point.

Look, I get that athletes etc. needn’t be moral or righteous, but they should face consequences for their actions, same as everyone else. But their status and the economics involved dictates that they don’t. If Greg Hardy was a regular guy, his employer perhaps doesn’t hesitate to fire him, instead of praying he gets…

What makes you think she considers herself a reporter? She’s a commentator.

It’s scripted TV, what were you expecting? The Daily Show, John Oliver, etc. are equally “contrived.”

He was actually convicted, then appealed, was granted a jury trial, after which his accuser stopped cooperating with authorities. So, a little more than an accusation.

I think his point was this was more than just an “accusation,” he was actually convicted.

Not exactly. Like, OK, if Alabama is the only school knocking at your door, sure. But if you’re being recruited by ‘Bama to begin with, chances are you could earn a scholarship to a number of other schools without a racist past/currently institutionalized racism.

There’s two forms of Satanism, atheistic (LeVeyan) and theistic. To sum up, atheistic Satanism is basically an individualist, Darwinistic philosophy whereas theistic Satanism believes in the actual worship of Satan. So it’s possible to be a Satanist without committing to any kind of religious doctrine.

Fair. Every season I get excited, based on the well-done trailers and ads, the phenomenal cast, and a great premise. Somehow, I feel like they never manage to properly execute on all of that.

So, is everyone going to watch this one? I heard how good season 1 was, hopped on the train for season 2 and loved it. Seasons 3 and 4 had so much squandered promise (I stopped watching season 4 around the half-way point - once the clown was killed, it was less exciting for me). Just curious what everyone thinks.