I've had a Roku for awhile and loved it; just bought a $50 Roku stick for another TV and it's fantastic. I'm a tech moron, and Roku gives me no problem to set up and use.

I agree, absolutely. One of the key steps in finding the right editor is finding one who publishes stories you like to read. And any concept can be made fresh again with terrific writing, which I think most of the editors said, in one way or another.

I agree with you that self-publishing is freeing writers to write what they want, and that's a very good thing.

I think cliches are tropes, they're just tropes that have been over-used in the same reductive way because they're a convenient shorthand (aka, lazy writing).

I based anger on "Seriously, that is fucking absurd," bolstered by the italics on "single mountain lion," probably because I just reread Pratchett's Men At Arms: "He could think in italics. Such people need watching."

The headline is not sensationalist. It says what the article says: Rat poison is killing wildlife, something that the article shows has been documented. Since there are other ways to control pests, don't use rat poison. The infographic does mean something: It explains what happens to wildlife when it feeds on…

Actually, that's not a plot, it's a premise, and a vague one at that. The assumption is that the baby died, which is very sad but not a story. But what if the baby didn't die, what if they were never worn because the mother hated the giver? What if they were never worn because they were too small for the baby? …

Don't be disturbed. I was an English teacher, too, but I don't think that's where I encountered it since I'm not a big Stein fan. I think it's like any other reference; you hear them in passing and some of them stick and some of them don't. That one stuck with me because I thought it was both funny and true, not…

It's a reference to Gertrude Stein; writing about her childhood in Oakland, she said, "There is no there there," and it's passed into common usage to describe something that has no center and no depth.

I think the problem is that it's in the title.

Ah, now I'm seeing our different approaches more clearly.

I don't think I said the company was good or moral or ethical. I did say I liked their Teddy Grahams.

You're right.

Me, too. Sorry, focused on the detail, missed the big picture. We're on the same side.

I agree with you, I really do. The amount of damage done by huge corporations is devastating and not just in developing countries.

I just don't get this argument.

So you reject a great message that's going to be seen widely because somebody will make a profit from it? You're not moved by the beautiful ideas behind this video because the makers know that many people will agree with it?

Plus if other companies see this turning into profit, they'll follow suit, and that'll mean more open-minded images flooding the media. I can understand why the Moms-Who-Can't-Count are upset about this; the more these images are shown as the norm, the harder it's going to be for them to hold the line for bigotry and…

I really don't think that's the only reason they did this.

From Kathryn: " homophobe " or " bigot" sorry that's hateful to me ."