Oh, dear lord. I just turned on the tv only to see a Lay's ad belting out the "All by myself, don't wanna be . . . " part of this song. Ruined. Totally ruined now.
Oh, dear lord. I just turned on the tv only to see a Lay's ad belting out the "All by myself, don't wanna be . . . " part of this song. Ruined. Totally ruined now.
It was . . . Until Wendy's co-opted it for their pretzel bun commercial. Ug.
Someone sure sounds crabby.
Avian type, or Batman villain?
I'm going to have to re-think this, given some replies here, but I have always thought that bigamy did not include the consent of all parties. Lack of consent is the unifying theme of my comment.
No, I don't think so. Bigamy by definition is the act of marrying more than once without the consent of all parties. If all parties have knowledge and give consent, that is considered polygamy. Different things.
bigamy is, by definition, not consensual. But if you mean polygamy, I agree.
When the heck will the general population stop equating - pick one - adult on child incest, bigamy, rape, pedophilia, bestiality, etc. WITH CONSENSUAL SEX BETWEEN ADULT PEOPLE???!
May I get a heads up for best roommate stories? I have a beaut!
Journos, each and every one of them.
Think of me, would ya?
Don Cheadle is such an amazing actor . . . that I even watched Ocean's Thirteen the other night just for his few scenes.
Maybe head office told him to run a two-for-one special, and he got all flustered?
I wear women's panties and bras. They don't do dick [sic] to stop me from sliding on the grass in a soccer pitch.
I feel sheepish saying this . . . Summer of 2014?
He also segregates post-mastectomy women. In case, you know, it's contagious. OT, I know, but crap. That is where Jack and her girlfriend were invited to have "this delicate conversation". More crap.
As someone who has a diagnosed Anxiety Disorder, I ask you not to speak for me
And I have apologised twice for misstating that. Have a third, just for you: I am sorry, I got that wrong.
I think we may be arguing the same point? That it is up to the judicial system to determine what was and was not wrongful.
No, I'm arguing that stating that Pistorius was "capable of appreciating the wrongfulness of his act" presupposes that his act was wrongful, before the judges have decided his case, and is therefor prejudicial.