I think it's "factoid."

Kate Bush just crushed a glass in her hand.

At last, a way for the common man to harvest the financial benefits of hardcore cocaine addiction!

Agent Pubeit, yes. He's a little less illustrious. ;)

Even though it moved off 4chan pretty quickly, Chanology more or less kicked off Scientology's current slow-mo meltdown, so a tip of the hat is due there, I think.

Look, there's no giant movie star who gets less work. At a certain point, why wonder? No one wants to work with her.

My working theory is that "homosexuality is a choice" is a way for people who are mildly bisexual to explain to themselves their own desires in the context of the paths their lives have taken. (Apart from people who use it cynically for political reasons, obvs.)

"Wind, darkness" is a pretty good description of what I imagine dinner with Bret Easton Ellis would be like.

Dear Star: Colors are not punctuation.

Of all the different kinds of changes, transformation changes are my favorites.

At first glance, I thought it was Mika Brzezinski in the second ad, which kind of makes sense?

I'm so, so sorry this happened to you.

Yes, all religions are the same. And both parties do it. And MSNBC is just as bad as Fox.

Ironically, this letter has turned me into a lustful cockmonster. <3

I'm curious as to what you think about the questions I brought up in my previous comment. I'm not a scientist, so I'm wondering if they're actually valid.

That story doesn't actually address any of my questions. (Other than "Are you a scientist?") What you're saying is that the methodology in this study is bad because some studies have bad methodologies; you're not specifying how this study's methodology is bad.

How is it, then, that the test "reliably distinguishes between self-identified straight individuals and those who self-identify as lesbian, gay or bisexual?" Or that six different iterations of the study produced similar results? If the methodology was bogus, wouldn't there be a much wider range of results?

There are also arousal studies that indicate essentially the same thing. For example: [www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]

They included that to indicate that the test produces results that track with reality. If the methodology was bogus (as some people here are suggesting), the results would probably be significantly more random.

That you were totally comfortable reading so much into my comment more or less proves my point about your response to the post.