This is basically Gawker, with folks always more concerned about the fallout for far-left causes than people’s lives.

So in the first two sentences we get the irrelevant detail of how many children he sired and the probably false detail that he was “armed only with a book.” Great job of preaching to the SJW choir but abysmal journalism.

You are the whiffer. It's the union members, not the department, doing this. And the spokesman is correct that as an employee of a private company may be subject to certain requirements that government cannot impose. So the statement that he misunderstands the First Amendment is simply erroneous.

You are the one who doesn't understand the First Amendmnent. This may involve the principle of free speech, but this is a matter of employees in a private work space. The government is not interfering with their exercise of speech. And even their employers are not compelling them to not express their protest. The…

If he dislocated his knee (a la Teddy Bridgewater) or ankle it could be even worse than a fracture.

I hate it too but in this case it doesn't make me mad.

But he chose to sign

Are you just coming to this? Unless Sox ownership / management is truly suicidal, Sale will be traded in the off season as the Sox finally dismantle and rebuild.

At least never offset by something the refs deem truly dangerous like that hit was.

Well, lede is newspaper jargon, but “lead” is formally acceptable, as in “lead sentence/paragraph,” which is where lede comes from.

“The Reason Why”? Come on: you’re supposed to be writers.

“who called her on accident”? Did you get infected by the caller’s grammar?

“Preventing verbal abuse” and “correcting illogical ideas” sound a whole lot like censorship and speech police. And when you extend your definition of PTSD and trauma to include anyone who declares themselves uncomfortable, you are making them so broad as to be meaningless.

You are being metaphorical, but spiders in a book don't bite you

I seriously doubt the DA told her that. She is not helping her case with such a claim.

There really aren't many complaints about it from anybody

How can the Blackhawks possibly allow this?

Snopes has a point of view, especially political. When they “debunk” something, it often is actually a subjective interpretation, as with Steins’s comments. I’ve lost a lot of respect for Snopes; they have squandered their hard won credibility.

In a debate like this, a science person like her has no difficulty finding all the legitimate evidence there is. That's how legitimate science works. Any properly reviewed study is out there and known.

“Seemingly similar” not the same as “almost identically worded.” And you haven't explained why the change would be made to something even less unequivocal than the first one.