Ahh yes, that actually works well. It's the one way I've found to cook eggs in a cast iron skillet without them tasting funky.

That is not actually correct, but believe whatever you want.

That's really not what's being discussed here. Obviously if your pan is flaking teflon you shouldn't use it. But sometimes your pan can get scratched and develop a "sticky" spot where the scratch is. And sometimes you make the mistake of using a cooking spray which almost instantly makes your nonstick pan permanently…

In general I agree with you. But I've found there are a few things that simply don't taste right when cooked in a cast iron frying pan. For example, eggs. So while the majority of my cookware is either stainless steel or cast iron (including a few enameled pieces) I keep one nonstick frying pan for those few…

No lie, my mother told me just a few days ago she did this with her nonstick pans that weren't so nonstick anymore. So there, it really does work!

The left is for normal days. The right is for when I need to be heavily caffeinated.

I just whip out my penis. If that doesn't impress them, nothing I say ever will.

She never would have been able to afford the taxes and registration fees on that thing. It's not like she would have been able to keep it anyway.

Yes, but again, these are civil issues, not criminal. It's a huge distinction.

Yeah, I often forget trying to be logical and rational on Jezebel is an uphill losing battle.

If you can't understand the difference between taking photographs of children without the consent of their parents and distributing them in venues frequented by pedophiles vs. the sharing of a photo taken of and shared by a consenting adult then you need professional help.

A photograph is a form of artistic expression, and as such is considered a protected form of speech so long as the subject is not considered obscene (such as bestiality or child pornography). Listing someone's name and address is simply an exchange of public information, another protected form of speech.

Do you always respond to a simple logical statement by threatening the safety of someone's children? What kind of sick bastard are you?

Both of which are CIVIL crimes, brought to suit from one individual to another. If it becomes a criminal activity it is then it becomes the state versus the alleged offender, where it now becomes a free speech issue. Does one have the right to post a legally-taken picture that was legally obtained along with…

Well in all fairness she did have two nosejobs and at least one surgery to alter her jawline.

True, but one could question whether revenge porn would be considered harassment or defamation. It's a very grey area, and the lines are quite blurry. Just because you don't like the speech doesn't necessarily mean it falls outside the scope of the First Amendment.

Slander and libel aren't criminal offenses, and only apply if the statements made are untrue. And child porn is illegal for completely different reasons.

I don't know where you get that I think child porn is ok, cause I never ever said anything of the sort. And I don't see how someone's name and address is "confidential" as such things are almost always part of the public record. I'm not condoning revenge porn, just pointing out that a law that seeks to criminalize it…

Seems to me like such a law would violate the First Amendment.

Because you're not in the minority, so of course you don't understand the need. It's not about you, it's about us. You really don't need to understand or approve.