It's not about whether or not you like the content. It's about the fact that this site is hypocritical in its intent. And how is being able to choose what you click on here , uh, different than being able to choose what you do or do not watch on TV? That argument was entirely stupid.

Not to mention, you just contradicted yourself (no surprise, coming from someone who defends jezebel's regular practice of doing the same); since people on that show also say nice and complimentary / supportive things (Like Kelly Osborne and Giuliana both did just before the remark in question), then - based on your…

So being hypocritical (in the same regard you complain about: disrespect for others and their personal choices and lives) is perfectly good? It's a good thing to point out that certain things are unacceptable, and then turn around and engage in those exact things?

I'm sorry, did I claim that this site never posts anything about women's rights, news, etc.? No, I did not. The point is that having a blog devoted to peoples' personal rights and the concept of respecting peoples' personal choices - as well as respect in general - that devotes countless articles to snarking on…

"Isn't the problem really that a TV show exists for no other reason than to snark on people (read: mostly women)'s hair and clothing choices?" - Funny that you write this on a gossip blog that regularly snarks on peoples' hair and clothing choices - not to mention speculating and snarking on peoples' own personal life…

Well, considering you embedded the video to start at the 46-second mark, where the woman is holding a phone to her ear - and the phone is the only thing that is in color (and then shows the words "Introducing the world's slimmest phone" 4 seconds later), then yes, I would assume it was an ad for a phone. It's pretty…

As I said above, "...suffer heart attacks as a result of wanting to avoid being called "hysterical"" would make the difference in clarifying the point.That is simply not how it reads.

The headline reads as if women choose to have heart attacks intentionally as the means to avoid being called "hysterical", not that they suffer heart attacks as a result of wanting to avoid being called "hysterical". There is a difference between those two things.

Ok, glad I was able to properly convey my concern / sticking point (or whatever). What you say here does make sense, but I think it does require a bit of "insider" knowledge - if that makes sense?

The OP (of this thread, to whom you have been replying and criticizing) most certainly did:

All very good points. You did touch on the main sticking point for me, though; if "sexual assault" can be a "lesser" act not involving penetration, then calling a sexual assault case "rape" could very well be inaccurate in describing what the act involved if there really was no penetration - does that make sense? (And…

"Tell everyone working at the restaurant that this is happening — you're likely to get free drinks and tasty treats sent your way." - This is exactly why so many people can't stand encountering these parties in public (I can't imagine having to serve one) - the entitled attitude of a bunch of drunk people in stupid…

While I don't debate what you say here, and while the reporters / editors of the news outlet may even be aware of the legislative history, I just think it makes sense that a news source would use the actual terminology that the courts use in a specific case when reporting on that case.

The OP's original account does not match their complaint; she said that the doctor administered "a bunch of tests" in response to her complaints, then qualified it as "I was dismissed out of hand". Administering "a bunch of tests" on a patient in response to their complaints / symptoms and then asking a follow-up…

By the OP's own description, the doctor did administer "a bunch of tests". The question came after the tests. Her reaction makes no sense, based on her own account.

That headline is horrible - it reads as if it is saying that women choose to suffer from heart attacks in order to avoid being called "hysterical".

If the doctor administered "a bunch of tests" then how, exactly, does that equate "dismissing (you) out of hand"..? According to you, you were "poo-poohed" after the tests had been administered. It sounds like they listened to you and administered tests, found nothing that indicated heart problems (or were waiting for…

"Ugh, I hate when the press tries to use euphemisms like this. He raped her." - There is no confusion here on my part, it is all on your part. "Assault" is not a euphemism for assault, which is what he is charged with (based on the accounts of both the victim and the perpetrator). There is no available evidence being…

How can you seriously be this unabashedly ignorant? It is an indisputable FACT that he has been charged with sexual assault and not rape. He has NOT been charged with rape. It is right there in front of your face in black and white.

"Holy cow, you are really into this." - How many comments have you made on this thread (that you initiated, by the way) so far over the past 24+/- hours...?