Dan

"And can I just say, the anti-psychotics are really helping these guys keep the match together" - heard on commentary

As he should

Did you enjoy talking to an AI chatbot you were pretending was his son?

if they didn't want you to fuck the pokemon they wouldn't've called themselves game freak

For example, Thomas Kinkade's work produces an emotional response from me, but no emotional resonance.

Because I fucking hate Thomas Kinkade's work

The problem is that Van said, under the guise of combating misinformation, that Grant admits Lesnar did nothing illegal in the lawsuit. Which simply isn't true.

Jimmy previously did the whole "not excusing it, but just sayin" shit when Vince's payoff allegations hit in 2022.

No, we can't sit by and let the DNC try to undermine Mamdani with their bullshit

Can attest

1) Cable channels are privately owned, as are the shows appearing on them
2) Forcing a private entity to host speech they don't want to is compelled speech, which violates the first amendment
3) FD never required equal time, nor did it require opposing view(s) to be on the same show

Play The Mini Crossword All the fun of the larger New York Times Crossword, but you can solve it in seconds.

www.nytimes.com/badges/games...

I don't really care all that much about calling it Gruyere if it actually tastes like Gruyere cheese.

The fact that they're calling it Cheddar Gruyere is what kills me, because....no.

Today truly is defamation day...this is at least the 3rd shit defamation take I've seen today

Here's the issue - even under normal circumstances, it wouldn't be considered defamatory. Once you add in that Haile is a public figure, you're well past "unlikely", and are squarely in "Not even remotely close" territory

So using 'likely' was also a mistake.

This is obscene

That's the guy!

There's also that other one....Kyle something....it's on the tip of my tongue

Yep. He's a really useful example for a lot of the wrongheaded "But calling someone something bad is defamation" takes, because they can't ever come up with good reasoning to counter it.

Narrator: She did not, in fact, have grounds to sue anyone over being called a nazi

According to the Georgia State Bar, he does ADR, insurance, and worker's comp

But he wasn't convicted of murder. In fact, he was acquitted! So according to the slapdash theory of defamation you're working under, OJ should have had a slam dunk case. And yet...

Are we taking bets on what his area of expertise is? 'Cause my money's on patents/IP based on previous experience

I'm guessing you were very confused why OJ Simpson never sued anyone for calling him a murderer

Believe it or not, opinions don't need to be prefaced with "it is my opinion that"

So no, it wasn't a statement of fact. It's an opinion.

The lawyers telling you that you're wrong?

And shortly afterwards ending the whole thing by telling the audience "Thank you. Good night. I hope you're happy"

I remember when I originally watched the show, I didn't think much about that line, figuring it was just a nice sign-off. But on rewatches...it doesn't read that way to me.

Except it's not likely either

Agree. I understand why Inside took off like it did, but I enjoyed what. and Make Happy far more

Nope, that's not what gossip is.

When it comes to knowing what you're talking about, you are a complete failure.