Addicts are covered in the Americans with Disabilities Act? Do you have any evidence of that, or are you just saying it because it feels good to say?

Who the fuck are you?

Kat and I already had an adult conversation about terminology. Your "for all intents and purposes" bullshit is not based on any real research on science or law. It's based on your ignorant feelings.

"A wider application of the idea of ableism," is what I'm opposing, here. Because if disability is expanded to "factors that affect an individual's ability to function within a conventional societal framework," then it loses its original (and still legal) meaning, and then we need a new word to refer to a specific…

I don't follow the logical thread in what you're saying. Ableism is often used to describe discrimination against people with a wide range of mental disorders, and addiction is certainly under that umbrella? That's not a proof, it's an a priori premise you're just telling me to accept. I'm telling you I don't agree…

Here's the whole problem, though — at no point do I say anything about others with addictions or disabilities. I'm only talking about myself and my experience and how I feel about the language. So take your own little lecture:

What are you talking about?

I totally agree with you. Now go kill yourself.

you must not have read the rest of the exchange. It was actually very civil and productive. Looks like the problem might actually be you.

I don't have the background or credentials that you have, but I'm really happy you're in the conversation.

I'm the person who raised the subject. And I'm the opposite of the imaginary person you criticized at the end there. I'm a person living with a for-all-intents-and-purposes suicidal drug addiction, and I'm uncomfortable with the idea that amputees and MS sufferers and others under the classical umbrella of the term…

Thank you. The actual problem here is just laziness with language, I think. People using words to describe feelings rather than thought-out opinions. Which has its place. But that place is not discussions of mass societal problems, or intensely lonely painful individual struggles when talking to strangers.

I feel like I'd seen you around the Gawkerverse before and hadn't thought you were terrible, but Jesus Christ was I wrong. Should I be happy or impressed with your incredible level of self-involved humanity that you're "worried about me"? Or are you actually cognizant of the fact that you're just trolling more with…

Maybe just accept the inherent meaninglessness of existence and "individuation" and stop searching for value in actions or thoughts, your own or those of others.

You said "I apologize for any unwarranted assumptions I've made about you." That's not apologizing for your inappropriateness. That's saying you don't know what specifically you did but you'll say sorry anyway. That's not what an apology is. And you had already gone right back to telling me about about me and…

From a strictly fact-checking point of view, I'm pretty sure when the last message is displayed on your phone as "Yesterday - 6:29pm" and the next one is "Just Now!" it has been more than an hour.

All you had to do was apologize and/or back off, too. Gave you ample chances for that. You got what you were digging for, and your reaction at the end clearly shows it is in fact what you were seeking.

Eat a dead baby, cunt.

You must have missed the part where I told you to go fuck yourself. I already got the point that this is all about you — I just don't fucking care. You suck. I didn't say shit about what you have or haven't experienced. Go break your neck again. No wonder your brother drinks.

You know what, you can just go fuck yourself. You're right. You are done. Dismissing this shit. Come back when you can actually read and follow along. And take your corporate-speak non-apology and shove it up your stupid cunt. If you can't take responsibility for the shit you say, just stop talking. If you're not in a…