So, because she’s successful she can’t be criticized?

Just an FYI; the only reason Flying Squid posts at all is to attack people, insult people, twist peoples’ wors, play childish games, and ultimately play the victim - typically by resorting to randomly bringing up his disability and falsely accusing other commenters of mocking him for it. That is what he is here for -…

Certainly not that “break-dancing”.

So you were part of the mixing and production team? Because just listening to the music gives you no authority in the debate.

Good to know that, along with the writers and many of the commenters here, Adele also has reading comprehension problems. Nice vocabulary, though.

If you want to date other people (and still date your current boyfriend), tell your boyfriend and let him decide whether or not he wants to be in a non-monogamous relationship with you. If you don’t want to continue seeing him, break up with him. Pretty simple.

Yeah, I don’t have a problem with the fact that it happens (I just listen to what I like regardless) - it’s just funny that people flip the fuck out at the mere mention of the fact that it does in fact happen, even with their very own idols. And I’m convinced this site wouldn’t even exist if the writers were not…

I think she’s a great singer, but her music doesn’t interest me at all so I’m not that familiar with much of her work - but given the genre, I highly doubt that her albums are 100% free of vocal manipulation. Another user posted some really good info on the original article (their follow-up comments in that thread are…

We know Adele has a great voice but it’s even questionable if that is actually her voice or how much has been manipulated.

“a recognizable voice and a moving delivery matter more than range and perfect pitch”

Don’t know if it’s the/a preferred replacement for someone identifying as non-binary, but the word“nibling” is a gender-neutral term for the child of one’s sibling(s).

*Now let’s say someone provided photos of the cyclist riding his bike months / a year after the accident.

Well, if you consider refreshing the browser window as one does after being away from the computer for a significant period of time “obsessively check[ing] to see if [you’d] dismissed [my] comment”, it wouldn’t surprise me in the least given your complete lack of understanding of words and their meaning. Perhaps one…

The photos were admitted because they provided evidence that directly contradicted her claims that she was “socially isolated and socially reticent”, for which she was seeking damages. She took the stand, opening her up to cross-examination. The photos directly contradicted her claims - which were about what behavior…

“You might want to look up the definition of a word before claiming someone else is “redefining” it:”

I see you dismissed my reply. How surprising.

This is what the writers here do, and it’s blatantly obvious that it’s intentional. They rely on the fact that very few of the readers actually click on the links and/or otherwise research the stories or cases before responding, so they are able to get away with distorting and omitting facts to produce the story they…

“I don’t really get what the lawsuit being dropped against some of and settled the other defendants have to do with anything.”

This is an excellent point. It’s funny that the person arguing “the legal definition” of a specific term is not only just pulling it off of google, but seems to also be not really even reading and understanding it - and then tells others things like “You might want to look up the definition of a word before claiming…

Ok? So why is that a reason to not allow the photos to be admitted?