God, I fucking knew Payne Stewart was awesome.

That certainly seems possible - although they hired Latham & Watkins. Latham is a great firm but...not cheap. If you're going to file a losing lawsuit, I might have looked for some cheaper lawyers.

Right. Their smoking gun on that is that it was a double blind study so the research team couldn't have spoken to the dropouts. I'm no academic but I assume those double blind rules end when the study of that participant is over. Or at least some way is built in to contact dropouts about why they quit. But you're…

It's a head-scratcher. They're suing the NSCA, which published the Journal in which the study appeared. The connection that they're alleging is that one of the four university researchers who authored the study is a fellow of the American College of Sports Medicine, and that the NSCA and ACSM are "peers." Speaking…

Was there any noticeable difference from the early scenes to later scenes as far as film quality, lighting, definition, etc.? I don't know how it was shot and while I imagine there's little to no special effects, I'm curious as to whether advances in filmmaking technology over the past decade showed up on screen.

I haven't seen it yet this summer, but Half Acre makes a hoppy wheat ale - Akari Shogun - that is just the tits.

Is there any sort of contact between the Deadspin staff and anyone at Barstool Sports? I know Deadspin has linked to an article there before and I know they toss a shot over Deadspin's bow every now and then, but I'm wondering if the general opinion of the staff toward that particular outlet is anything but apathy.

"Ahh, the Wrigley bleachers. Home to the shiftless, the drunk, and the "I'm gonna ruin somebody's game before the second inning even starts."

They weren't being promoted or advertised, more like interviews with accompanying pictures.

Why should Deadspin feel ashamed? All they did was report that charges had been brought - which was and remains a true statement - without much in the way of commentary and certainly nothing about whether the allegations were true or not. Should Deadspin feel ashamed for reporting on Colin Kaepernick's involvement in…

I can remember being a high school junior running distance track and thumbing through my Eastbay catalog with pictures of Ryan Hall, Dathan Ritzenhein, and Alan Webb in competition, all in the same high school class as I recall.

"Did you watch the Wednesday night segment on "Colbert," or was it just the tweet that you saw?

She sure seems to spend a lot of time on Twitter retweeting people who think she is great. @realdonaldtrump

As interesting as the debate is as to who is to blame for this paper and the grade it was given, I have a feeling that a lot of people on the internet - because this paper was about Rosa Parks, and because it was in Afro-American studies - are going to use this screenshot as a substitute for what they really want to…

Bai Ling, in that one episode where she gave Jack a bad tattoo, but nobody knew what the tattoo meant and she wouldn't say, then her brothers beat up Jack for getting the tattoo. The worst.

Her response answers absolutely none of the questions people had about the charity. $300k on strategic consulting: who got that money, and did the charity receive reasonable value for that money (especially in light of an additional $150k spent on philanthropic consulting)? Isn't $450k a lot to spend on consulting in…

Off the top of my head, tour revenues from the cancelled tour, lost sales from loss of fans (hard to prove), emotional pain from being falsely accused of rape. If he can prove she was malicious about it, then punitive damages as well which could be millions.

Oh I agree - it wouldn't really apply in this case. I just wanted to make the point that in libel cases, you don't even have to necessarily know what you're saying is a lie. Suppose that she posted that a friend of hers had been raped by Oberst (and assume that was not true). She wouldn't have to "know" this was a…

He doesn't even have to prove that much. She's accusing him of a crime, so it's libel per se i.e. the damages can be assumed. All he really has to prove is that she made the statements and that they're aren't true. Libel is a negligence standard, so actually she didn't even have to "know it was a lie."

This is like the 4th explanation I've received and they all sound so reasonable. I'm going to go ahead and say "sure, that sounds right."