Nope - you are wrong again!

Who cares what you are - or are not convinced of? You have already proven yourself (by your own words and reasoning) to be not very smart after all - and yes, that is very amusing, isn't it?Oh - and you still have yet to make one single point of any value or consequence.

Ah, but you see - you yourself declared my commentary to be sarcastic, thereby (since you are going with my sarcastic assessment of how smart you are as the degree of your intelligence) declaring (and showing) yourself to be not so smart after all! See how that works...?

Not only are you clearly the one who has been upset from the very beginning* (because of your false interpretation of the story), but everything I have said has been correct and accurate - as backed up by the facts of the story. Denying that fact does not make any of your claims true. In fact, they are all wrong.…

OH, YOU'RE STILL UPSET ABOUT BEING PROVEN WRONG AND HAVING ADMITTED TO BASING YOUR ARGUMENT ON CRAP YOU MADE UP RATHER THAN FACT?!?! HAHAHA!!!

Oh, you are so smart! Too bad you have completely failed to make a single point of any value whatsoever! You must be having so much fun making pointless comments on the internet!

I know someone who was tipsy at a party once and dumped a cup of beer on someone's baby.

I threw my back out sneezing.

NO, I SAID IT WILL MAKE YOU FEEL BETTER - IT'S ALWAYS BETTER TO ADMIT YOU ARE WRONG WHEN YOU ARE WRONG - AND YOU ARE WRONG!!! NEED WE REVIEW?!?:

OH, COME ON EILEEN - YOU KNOW YOU ARE WRONG SO JUST FESS UP AND ADMIT IT!!! YOU RELIED ON THE SAME SOURCE ARTICLE FOR YOUR ASSESSMENT (THAT YOU FULLY ADMIT YOU THEN INTERPRETED FOR YOURSELF) THAT MATCHES EVERY OTHER NEWS ARTICLE ABOUT THE STORY!!! YOU HAVE NOT PROVIDED ONE SINGLE PIECE OF INFORMATION TO REFUTE…

NOPE! The facts of the story - along with your willful admission that your entire argument is based on your interpretation - prove you wrong...! I don't even have to go with the Daily Mail's telling, because I can find the same facts in any other news story about it (except jezebel's of course)...! Funny how you say…

What's funny is this site will do the same with photos of whoever they want, for whatever reason they want, and think it's perfectly ok. But if a male teenager (or grownup) does the same (and from what I have seen, he said nothing rude about her), it is disgusting and worth posting a story about to rile up all the…

I wasn't arguing with you on any of those other points, simply pointing out that you had explained the effects of the wide-angle lens as well as over/under exposure incorrectly.

NOPE! I have proven your statement that nobody called him out on it wrong (multiple times! With multiple citations!), and I have again reminded you of the fact that you have based your entire argument on your own interpretation of the story - and that you freely admitted to doing so. Do we need to review...?!?:

Why yes I have! I have even been one before! Thanks for your valuable input!

Thanks, idiot - I will...!

Hmm... probably because she didn't respond by telling him "No" after he said "Challenge accepted"...? Again (as I just answered previously), she agreed to the challenge by offering that number then going along with his counter offer. Did she put a stop to it? Did she indicate in any way whatsoever that no, he is not…

HAHAHA! WHAT?!? The girl CHOSE to put the image online, where it could be shared. The camera manufacturer has absolutely NOTHING to do with that! The girl is the source of the image's online availability, which is how the boy got it.

"Nope. They ordered him to do something and he did it." - No, they ordered him to STOP doing what he was doing - i.e., they called him out on what he was doing. Not calling him out on it would be taking no action once they became aware of it.

...to justify what?