Nope. It is a fact that he indeed was called out on it (no interpretation there!), which you claimed not to be the case. It is also a fact (not my interpretation!) that you admitted to basing your argument on your own interpretation. I am 100% correct in these assertions. See your words quoted below (emphasis mine):

I bet you're a "nice girl".

And what would we do without women calling "Boyz" "Dum" and trying to get the last word in? I know for a fact we will never find out!

"Now you're just trying too hard." - Says the person who just spammed me with nearly half a dozen unhinged replies.

That wasn;'t my opinion - it was yours, based on your own reasoning. :^)

"The fact NO ONE called him out on it?" - Yeah, there's a pretty key fact you're leaving out there.

No, you can't. That's why, based on your reasoning, "Girlz R Dum" applies as well.

She agreed to let him post a tweet online stating that if it gets re-tweeted 500,000 times he would get to take the girl's mom to the prom, knowing it would (most likely) get re-tweeted an unknown number of times. She may have believed that it would never have gotten re-tweeted that many times, but she did agree to…

I never said she didn't think the question was ridiculous. A person can still agree to a challenge that is ridiculous. She agreed to the challenge by offering that number (the going along with his counter offer).

She never said anything along the lines of "No - you can't ask her" - she agreed to the challenge, indicating she thought she could pimp her out willingly as well.

She never said anything along the lines of "No - you can't ask her" - she agreed to the challenge, indicating she thought she could pimp her out willingly as well.

"Yes, I wrote "starting with this kid." The key word here, would be "starting" because it implies there would be others who would be on the receiving end of this rage, no?" - That is correct. I am also correct in pointing out you chose to not place any blame specifically on the girl - who's actions were the "start" of…

No, I challenged your (incorrect) interpretation and omission of facts by citing the facts available*. See, when you are discussing facts, your own interpretation (which you clearly admit is what you are basing all of your comments on) does not apply, as it is not fact; it is your interpretaion.

" interpreting for myself" - Exactly my point.

Yes, it certainly does. Her response of "Dear God" only indicates something like "I can't believe we are doing this / I can't believe I am agreeing to this", considering she challenged him to get a certain number of re-tweets. She doesn't say anything like "I am joking - don't you dare do it!" in any way whatsoever.…

Your words: "If I were Chloe'e mom [and] found out my bathing suit pictures were posted all over Twitter? I have no doubt the amount of rage that would take over would be otherworldly. The ripple would hit any human within a 20 mile radius, starting with this kid." - The reason he was able to use the photo is because…

"[T]he mom, who now has photos of herself in a bikini plastered all over the internet..."

"your child posting pics from your vacation(with most likely your permission), is vastly different than some random teen using it as bait, to "win" you as a prom date." - I never said it wasn't.

No, they do not:

Uh, yeah... but the available facts are in the source article. The story above is based in large part on assumptions (as per jezebel's typical MO). You do know the difference between an actual fact-based source article in an actual news source (yes, Daily Mail is questionable at best - but that it this writer's…