Right. I quoted you saying shit that was totally factually incorrect, entirely at odds with the article, and instead of acknowledging the fact that you were wrong and opined without bothering to find out the facts, you’re still engaging in this idiocy.

Yeah they have been saying that for hundreds of years.

It’s good they’re finally standing up for themselves.

k

. . . it appears you have me confused with the other person who responded to you. Also, really interesting syntax you have there.

Well, as long as they don’t stumble upon his drunk body and decide to take advantage of his inability to fight back by sticking their hands inside him, they’ll still have the moral authority in the situation.

Well, I can’t approve of this sort of thing.

Well, yes, obviously.

It’s good that she managed to overcome the handicap of not pleasing boners to still do something or other with her life.

Right. Your professional accomplishments aren’t significant enough to merit mentioning in your obit. Mine aren’t either. So the possible contents of your obit or mine are not really relevant when we’re discussing the obit of an extremely accomplished scientist.

It’s really puzzling that you’re so offended about this.

This is an example of what they call “outsider art”.

Oh, huh. The first Google result is from “Boobpedia, the Encyclopedia of Big Boobs”.

Hmm. Interesting.

Well, let that be a lesson to you!

She’s definitionally not good at teaching her subject, as she doesn’t have even the most basic understanding of freedom of the press.

I don’t know if it’s because she’s a woman. Remember, she’s also an aggrieved white person.

Sure, that poor white lady has suffered enough.

Wait, weren’t you quite concerned earlier about the environmental impact of growing crops?

Well, that rests on the assumption that it’s the same guy.