I kinda agree with him. She sounds robotic, particularly on this last album, and I am not comparing her to Bowie. I am compared to how she sounded in 19... The production team definitely had a heavy hand this time. I truly didn’t like this last album.

I think they were both talented cause to me, a recognizable voice and a moving delivery matter more than range and perfect pitch... but if I were making a point about good singing, I wouldn’t pick Cobain, Hendrix, or Bob Dylan as examples. I’d pick someone like Freddie Mercury or even Robert Plant, if he is all about…

Damn, since those were her claims, yeah those pics definitely will go against her. Shit, I hate to say it, but I guess this piece of shit judge may have made a fair call if you look at her claims of social isolation and social reticence.

So I read your comment re. Colton Haynes....

So, Vulture has deleted whatever Galvin said about Singer, and Galvin has already apologized for the interview.

And it really bums me out, because I love The Real O’Neals.

First I’ve heard of him too, but I guarantee he’s that guy!

Sad thing is the sitcom he’s on is actually pretty decent, and was co-created by Dan Savage. (Also, stars the wonderful Martha Plimpton.)

He’s that bitter guy still at the bar at last call while they’re playing ABBA and turning on the lights, whining about why no one will give him a chance. Dude, they’re not being fussy queens, you’re cute. It’s because your personality sucks.

Ah, that’ll do it. She def opened the door to that. Thanks for the info.

That’s a decent point. “Relevant” is a pretty liberal standard.

Well, I’m not saying that I like this, but if you are arguing emotional distress and as part of that claim stating that you have severe anxiety in crowds, for example, or no longer are able to socialize like a normal person - then it is likely relevant. But not the clothing. The clothing doesn’t have a damn thing to…

Since we are talking about laws and legal actions, yes that is correct.

To be clear, the definition is saying “or [is] incapable of giving valid consent because of . . . deception.”

The deception part, I think, is there for things like a woman pretending to be a man to get another woman into bed (a thing that has actually happened). If it meant, “I was raped because I was lied to.” then basically every man on earth needs to be arrested.

It’s literally in the legal definition.

Wikipedia is not where WA state gets it’s laws. There is no rape by deception in WA state law.

Rape has different definitions in different states. Rape by deception isn’t a thing in NY, looks like it isn’t in Washington either. Here’s the relevant Washington statute (edited bc duh, Washington not OR)-

What constitutes rape varies from state to state and country to country. According to this link only 12 states recognize some variety of rape by fraud (looks like a few other consider it a different lesser offense) https://rapebyfraud.com/state-by-state…

I’m not sure where you found that definition, but that’s not how legal definitions work. You have to look at the statute in the jurisdiction to determine the definition of the crime and the elements you would need to prove to convict. Also, deception, your highlighted term is broad and ambiguous. What falls within its…