jimtkruk
J.T.
jimtkruk

Only weighing in on one thing here, because I’m not in the position to judge on this specific thing, and that’s the fact that actors have to do things they don’t want to do all the time. It’s sometimes a director’s job to push an actor outside their comfort zone. Directors sometimes have fun with cast members by

Baseball is also the only sport where the other team will try to actually murder you (throw a fastball at your skull) for getting too excited when you do something good (at least, the only one where it’s not considered dirty play). Imagine if a hockey player whailed you in the head with his stick because you

It’s “Rye, NH,” not “Ryan” - Stuff got the quote wrong.

Trying to understand. You’d order grits from McDonald’s in Alabama, but not Wyoming. That makes sense - there’s probably someone at the Birmingham McDonald’s who knows how to make grits, so you might get good grits, but much lower chance someone in Wyoming knows how to make good grits. But that’s for

US

I don’t do criminal, but I do criminal adjacent, so I’ve seen a lot of these without being directly involved. And it seems to me that prosecutors usually want to prosecute even if the defendant doesn’t want to cooperate - if they don’t prosecute, it seems to me that 95-99% of the time it’s a practicality thing, not

that might be true if the facts line up that way. but, again, we don’t know enough to say that. you can’t dismiss her insistence that he didn’t do anything wrong, and you can’t dismiss the committee’s determination that the preponderance of the evidence showed that he did do something wrong. the victim can’t simply

I don’t know which comment to respond to, so I’ll just start with the first. There’s a standard of proof here, and it’s preponderance of the evidence. Standard in a criminal case is beyond a reasonable doubt. In a criminal case, it’s extremely difficult, if not impossible, to get a conviction without the victim’s

1998 called, they want their iMac review back. From May 6, 1998, Macworld:

I don’t know what’s with the headline, but it’s really misleading. Just read the headline and what do you think? Larry Nassar is getting scot-free! Read into the article and you realize he’s actually spending most or all of the remainder of his life in jail, he’s and the government are just avoiding a lengthy trial

I know very little about the legal details of this case. Sounds like they had a great case against him, but I don’t know what evidence they had, what he said, and whether his statements were made with his lawyer present. But here’s one possible justification: with finite resources and the unpredictable nature of

it doesn’t really matter what you want next door. My inner dictator might want to tell my neighbors what to do, but I don’t want my neighbor’s inner dictator telling me what to do. Having an annoying neighbor is just one of the risks of having neighbors. As long as it’s not seriously infringing on your ability to

Only thing I disagree with is your position on the use of social media. Public info is totally fair game. It’s not ‘stalking’ in the ‘stalking’ sense. It is ‘social media stalking,’ which in this case is nothing more than googling. They probably saw some evidence on the car that she had taken it to a track,

Someone should do a telephonic DDOS campaign with the PGA. You know those “if you see something, say something” signs? I always want to call and say things like “I saw a turd on the sidewalk,” or “There were rats in the subway.” Basically spam them with BS because that campaign is BS. Or go the opposite way and

same here! ThirdAmendmentMan might be right, but that ‘cost’ isn’t even in that link. then I thought “cheap,” but that was the word Petchesky just used. Cost? Cut? Crappy? (like, get crappy to tank, but then I think he would call it the T-word) Contraction? (but nobody has really talked about that for more than a

I read the headline three times and couldn’t understand why Jim Kelly was involved in this.

Hey Rachel, it’s already been said in the comments over and over, but I can’t help myself: THIS ISN’T A LEGGINGS BAN! IT ISN’T SEXUALIZING CHILDREN’S BODIES! IT ISN’T A MICROAGRESSION! If these were revenue passengers, you’d be totally correct! But they’re not. I brought my son to court with me a few weeks ago

I haven’t watched it, and I have friends who have and couldn’t finish because they found certain parts, especially gay and trans issues, too offensive. Don’t know if the friend even got to the Cosby stuff. But I do see some evidence of Dave doing something he’s always done - he makes a comment that shocks you, then

OK, how many of those were CNN? And we all know CNN is fake news. So that doesn’t count. If fake news covers real news, that doesn’t count. Everyone knows this. You would know this if you weren’t part of the lying press.

I agree with puke. This does come from someone notoriously bad with puke (when I was a kid my dog puked on me in the back seat of the car, which made me puke all over myself. My dad pulled the car over, a cop pulled up to see what was going on, it was like a mini-episode of the frank n beans scene from Something