Not to mention that he is standing in the lane of travel with traffic constantly going by, literally endangering himself and others.

No problem! I guess the takeaway is that we agree here; nothing about what the writer mentions as "strange" is ...well, strange. (I was just thrown off by the rest, thinking you may have replied to my comment instead of someone else's by mistake)

Uh... ok..?

"...nothing says "I care about domestic violence and the dignity of the victims" like saddling up a camera crew and confronting the batterer on television for ratings." - or posting yet another story about the case using a clickbait headline with false claims of "even weirder"...

And really, is it any different from Gawker repeatedly posting story after story about the case? Is Gawker not getting more attention by doing so? Is Gawker not benefiting from that attention?

OK, so it's now updated to include "Second" to list the second thing that makes this story "even stranger"; that War Machine is still on the loose (and has stopped tweeting, and has not turned himself in). How does that make this story "even stranger"...?

How does the fact that the other victim was on Megan Wants a Millionaire make this story even stranger? Is it strange that people in the entertainment industries associate with other people in the entertainment industries? And what is the second thing that happened that makes this story even stranger?

CeleryStalkers must have vast warehouses of products they have bought in order to avoid "stealing" programming..

"If you fast forward through commercials you're technically stealing television programming. " "Yes, it's conceptually stealing..." - so which is it, "technically stealing" or "conceptually stealing"..?? (Answer: neither.)

No, it is not stealing in any way, manner, or form. There is no obligation (or "agreement") on the part of the viewer to watch the commercials.

"They only make money on revenue from commercials. " - exactly; they have collected revenue from advertisers in exchange for ad space / time. They get their money for the ad space, the advertiser gets their ad space for the money they pay. There is literally ZERO obligation on the part of the viewer in this…

"He chooses who the POV characters are." Exactly - HE chooses. Because it's his work.

Advertisers pay networks / cable companies to run ads during certain programming. The networks / cable companies are getting paid for the ad space / time, and the advertisers are getting the ad space / time they pay for. The viewer (who is also paying the cable companies) is under no obligation to watch anything.…

...and then they blame any & all of it on Photoshop. The best is the posts on here criticizing specific uses of Photoshop (complete with ridiculing how the model's body looks) when it turns out the images were not Photoshopped (in they way the writer assumes & accuses them of) - or when Jezebel shells out $10,000 for…

Again, if there was a person who looked like the model in the finished photo then they would use that person. Why hire a photo editor and pay them $100,000-200,000 salary! Out of millions of models available, they can't find one that has eyes, hair, jawline, neck, face, height, waist, breast, thighs, skin, shoulders…

"If there is a person who looks like what they want then they would use that person as their model." - this is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever read or heard in my entire life. And you didn't answer the question; is it impossible that anyone at all could look like the model does in the finished photo? Are…

So it is impossible that anyone at all could look like the model does in the finished photo? There are no other humans on the planet with proportionately larger eyes, narrower face / jawline, and longer neck? Why does it matter whether or not the final image looks like the actual model in the photo? The intent of…

"I will say it again. If the same artifice can be achieved with hair, makeup, lighting, etc., then let hair, makeup and lighting be used..." - you will say it "again"? When did you say it the first time...?

No, my argument is that if using photoshop is "problematic" then so should the use of makeup & hair products (and everything else I mentioned in my original comment) be, as they are used to present a non-realistic, idealized image of the actual person much like when Photoshop is used. People get up in arms about the…

Did I say "hardly a big difference"? No. I did not. And your reasoning is nonsensical, as even with basic uses that do not alter the physicality of the model (light balance, tonal curve, contrast, hue & saturation adjustments, certain stylized effects), subtle changes can be important to the final outcome - and are…