That doesn’t make me a selfish person so much as someone who simply does not believe she has the prerogative to blow up a marriage of several years

“I am bored with myself,”

Wow, you sound like a college kid with more money than brains.

It is very hard to make a good living doing something that anybody can do. Ironically, that is both drive an uber, and act.

I don’t typically watch the Patriots play because I’m blessed not being near their media market. But the last few games I’ve seen, Brady has been throwing short a lot. Plenty of passes should’ve been completed but he threw short to open receivers. Even when Denver wasn’t bringing a lot of pressure.

Don’t blame Microsoft. It’s not their fault the tablets are full of spyware.

You should cross-post this to Paleofuture. That entire blog is a monument to bad future predictions.

They’re basically just repeating things that were already posted on Urban Dictionary and passed along by teens for years before that.

Tim!!! It’s not a novel approach. It’s called journalism, or at least it used to be. The idea is a simple one—you start with objectivity, and then you gather the facts before smearing a man’s name. This story went from true, to a hoax, back to true in one afternoon—so you can’t tell me Diana thinks she was covered by…

I’ll go ahead and say it - Diana showed her ass in her “I’m not saying Rob Konrad is lying, but I’m not saying he’s not lying” reporting. When you write a headline like this, you're basically hedging your bet that the person in question is a liar. And for the second time in as many stabs, her straw grasping came up…

I think the point is that you looked into Fleming’s story because there appeared to be no corroboration (good), but when you found corroboration that more or less matched Fleming’s story, you still ran with the “his story is fishy” angle, even though it was no longer fishy. It feels like you wrote this story with a…

You're a cock regardless, Marchman.

Gotta agree with Marchman here, there’s literally no difference between being skeptical about a story and running a story painting a guy as a lying sack of shit. That’s journalism 101 bro, duh.

It is an odd choice to run a story of which the basis is, “I am not sure we should believe this story,” when the story in question has been confirmed. That was his point.

One would think you’d read and digest a comment before defending yourself:

So you are reporting on others who are currently, actively, reporting. Also you’d like some help with your own reporting and you’re going to let us know if you’re allowed to use a credit card.

“I was told that we could get a copy if we provided a $5 check and then we could get a copy of the report in the mail. I’m not in Boston”

Engaging defensively in the comments makes you look, well, defensive.

Pretty sure hes saying that its weird to run with a story once you have confirmed that there is no story and to change said story into how you confirmed said story was in fact, not a story.

Hey guys, good job. You did exhaustive research trying to prove this guy to be a liar, but came up short. Alas, you ran with the pointless story anyway.