Yeah, no. When she's given an international platform, out of good will, to spread word of her work, and someone, without malice, uses terms or descriptions you don't favor, you don't repay the favor by blasting an ALLY five days later rather than trying to educate them.

Want to know how "that works"? She's now much…

Yeah, it totally can't be defended, even though Janet Mock is on record in multiple places explicitly stating that she was "born a boy."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/janet-mock/tra…

Oh. Yeah. Maybe it was right to double-down on calling someone out on total, 100% hypocrisy.

Funny how it's difficult to "listen" when trans people—Janet Mock, in this case—CONTRADICT THEMSELVES. She, on numerous occasions, described herself as having been "born a boy."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/janet-mock/tra…

Because he did, and he was right? And Janet Mock was totally hypocritical, and wrong? And previously, on numerous occasions, described herself as having been born a man?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/janet-mock/tra…

Oh. That awkward moment when you're totally, demonstrably incorrect. Yeah.

Yeah, in your dream world, perhaps. He used terminology and descriptions SHE HERSELF USED in the last two years, only to have her turn around and blast him on the Internet days after the interview. You know, the interview he had to support her, and let her tell her story? Yeah, that one.

And FYI, no, the trans…

Or rather, she could stop pretending that she hasn't described herself in exactly the same way that Morgan did, only to turn around and blast him—a guy who went out of his way to tell her story on his show.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/janet-mock/tra…

Except in this case, Janet Mock explicitly stated that she was "born a boy." There a bunch of places where she's said this.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/janet-mock/tra…

So an accurate description would be:

He tried to argue it because SHE HERSELF EARLIER STATED that she was "born a boy." SHE SAID IT. JANET MOCK said it. Do you understand that?

And did she call him out on saying it when he said it? NOPE! Did she follow up with the show to convey displeasure? NOPE! She blasted him PERSONALLY on Twitter DAYS later, spewed…

Oh, Kinja. Clear as mud.

Huge-scale combat—arguably one of the most compelling features of the game—is still agonizingly laggy, though the game was released literally a decade ago? Silly, really.

Don't forget this gem:

Who is the one at the top right supposed to be? Nathan Drake..?

This article—and the gentleman it's about—are absurd. The player is not being forced to undergo a baptism—the CHARACTER is. How can he have a problem with the character being baptized, but have NO PROBLEM with the character KILLING people in the first two games—which he said he loved—CONSTANTLY?

Ridiculous.

This is bad advice. If it works "99% of the time" for you, it's probably because the zit was not going to be a problem to begin with.

OLEDs don't really have any weaknesses other than difficulty to manufacture (expense). There were issues of the blue diodes dying more quickly than the red and green ones, but that problem has been mostly smoothed out.

Posted on the wrong page. Bizarre.

Or rather, "twit," they were made to (supposedly) appeal to an entire family. Not just adults, not just kids. You're an ignorant asshat, and the new three movies all sucked as much as your "argument."

They were terrible. And no, they weren't created for, or marketed to, children.

"The only thing AMD is closer to is bankruptcy."

Sorry, but no. The buck stops with the CEO, no matter if you think that's fair or not.