ohnonotthebees
NotTheBees
ohnonotthebees

I’m just going to point out that typing quickly and knowing keyboard shortcuts are completely different things. Please don’t equate the two.

Nope, but close. Think west.

I grew up in an Albertan town of ~10,000. Hated it. Some of the most common words in every high school conversation were “faggot,” “retard,” and “nigger.” It was also incredibly common to dehumanize the people who lived on the nearby reserve.

Thank you for finding that! That makes this a little less gross.

Correct me if my math is wrong, but wouldn’t she only be 70 now? It’s totally feasible that she is alive to this day and, if so, it makes me so uncomfortable that someone decided to turn this into an exhibit without Margret’s consent.

Can you please tell me stories every day?

Weird. I was trying to find information on Canadian trademark laws, and I couldn’t find any case law regarding this kind of thing. I mean, it makes sense if you have a trademark on a specific product or logo, et cetera, including colour, and someone introduces an incredibly similarly appearing product that infringes

Nivea makes some of the only creams that don’t wreak havoc on my incredibly-dry-yet-acne-prone skin, so I love them for that. However, I think this is incredibly silly. It's a colour. How can this be trademarked at all?

I was confused by that as well, so thanks for clearing that up. I’m a court reporting student up in Canada, so I obviously prefer the Crown prosecution or the Crown or even the prosecution. Maybe you could add a footnote to clarify for your American readers in future articles? I’m sorry that I’m overly picky about

sounds like you've got a nicely wrapped up civil suit on your hands..

I voted earlier because I was having a rough day and was hard on myself, but I'm back to say hell no.

Speaking as a 20-year-old generally hetero-romantic woman, it's actually forearms for me. Like, shit. Shoulders are up there, but — oh my god, do you have nice forearms? Basically just a flustered mess over here.

Brb, gonna go replace all my crazy hair dye with special fx. I'm all for full-head pastel colours, even though my hair is naturally the darkest brown you can imagine. Oh well. I can get away with the fun colours now as a student, so you can bet I'm taking full advantage of that!

Did you mean thanks, Obama?

"I have to wash my hair."

WHAT

I don't see the problem some others are seeing with this. What I am referring to is comments regarding the fact that Stevenson is basing her decision to no longer suck men off on previous experience. I understand that the "main problem" is that she is still seeking the type of sexual pleasure that gets her off, but

Welcome to Edmonton, where we're all white and racist as shit.

There is for civil cases, and a small part of my basic perception of that difference is because judgements are weighed on a balance of probabilities, rather than needing to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. From the American-sourced dictations I've written (I'm a court reporting student), it sounds like that's the

U.S. law confuses me. Why do offences have a set period of time in which they can be charged? I'm only well-versed in Canadian law, and there's no expiry on when the Crown can press charges here. Does anyone know why there's this difference?