test

It means that frat boys doubting it, Rolling Stone doubting it, anyone doubting it publicly — it doesn't change a damn thing for me. It was always doubtable because everything everyone says is doubtable, and I chose to believe it then and now. Calm down, "we're on the same side."

What she's saying is that she's willing to "believe" in the service of her cause, regardless of what the evidence shows. It's a round about way of admitting that she's an advocate rather than a journalist.

Anna's too busy scrabbling on the floor trying to find her dignity to protect any victim's at the moment. You had to know she was going to protect herself first if it came down to the wire.

Anna's too busy scrabbling on the floor trying to find her dignity to protect any victim's at the moment. You had to know she was going to protect herself first if it came down to the wire.

invested in the moral superiority of their cause

It confirms asshole's observer biases.

They retracted because they didn't do their due diligence and they now have doubts about the facts in their story. They also likely got an angry call from their legal department because reporting of this nature can expose you to some serious lawsuits.

It means that frat boys doubting it, Rolling Stone doubting it, anyone doubting it publicly — it doesn't change a damn thing for me. It was always doubtable because everything everyone says is doubtable, and I chose to believe it then and now. Calm down, "we're on the same side."

I long ago made a choice to err (if I'm erring) on the side of believing women.

Her apology is in no way equal to the comments she made and this is her response to a recent tweet of his.

And as for you Anna Merlan, you and your Masters Degree from Columbia should resign for your part in this.

I don't see much gloating. And, even if he were, he could be forgiven for gloating about being vindicated in the face of a nasty and personal attack on his professional integrity.

No hard feelings? She couldn't even be gracious in her tweeted response to you. I get that you're taking the high road, but you're letting her off way to easy.

You don't see any problems with calling someone an "idiot" and questioning their journalistic integrity when they're right and you're wrong?

What's saddest is the fact that this story blew up in the author's face has reinforced the "us vs them" mentality in the comment section (e.g. "Boy, I bet the MRA crowd loves this!")

Go read what she wrote about the authors and editors in the original article and the comments section again and then come back and explain to me on what planet those things should have been written. You're really reaching to defend an author who was clearly in the wrong.

Here it is.

Are you kidding me? Go read her initial article again.

Wow, did she actually right that? Because that's just unbelievably childish.