thanks for posting that
ETA: I thought by replying to Obsiburr you'd get out of the pink, but I guess not?
ETA: I thought by replying to Obsiburr you'd get out of the pink, but I guess not?
well since season 2 just started here, but aired last year there, and the christmas episode was timed to air on christmas, i just figure pbs will make people wait to increase the ratings.
also, fyi i was joking about where to find the episode, a bit of digging the internetz is all it takes.
also, fyi i was joking about where to find the episode, a bit of digging the internetz is all it takes.
yes, I know that is where it airs. for free. public television - what will they come up with next! but since I have been watching this series as it has aired in the UK, I would like to maintain that and not have to wait a year and half for something that aired last month. But thank you for your concern.
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO now where will I find the very special xmas episode of Downton Abbey?
do you mean the exact same nose Ben Vereen has? [www.rhymeswithsnitch.com]
that means he's also related to Usher! (b/c we all know Usher is Ben Vereen's love child right?)
I am so excited to have my own theme song...
Nope, the ghost got it right. [bit.ly]
yes! phew for a minute I thought maybe my post only made sense in my head!!! Though maybe mzunderstood is right and that guy/girl is trolling me...
All that animosity - and yet you still haven't replied to either my original reply, or my second reply. What about the chain of evidence lets you take things in and out of your pocket? Also, I didn't call you stupid, I called your comment stupid - there's a difference which you apparently fail to grasp, but all these many people calling your comment out for being, what is that, stupid, seem to have the same understanding I do. Yes, I watched the entire video, still doesn't change what happened, but what is it that you (so poorly) would like to argue has changed?
Finally, in no way, shape, or form, are you right - as others have much more kindly, (and some not so) pointed out.
Thanks for playing, see you tomorrow on the playground.
Finally, in no way, shape, or form, are you right - as others have much more kindly, (and some not so) pointed out.
Thanks for playing, see you tomorrow on the playground.
eta: changed my comment to be nicer, b/c possibly you just don't know better
i am ambivalent about +1s, they don't enrage me like they do some folks, neither do i love them like many deadspinners - hence my genuine question about their use over here.
also, you seem to think things should be spelled out in black and white, hence the google and encyclopedia replies - maybe try to understand the comment before replying?
Perhaps I should be more clear - what about any of my responses indicates I'm scared of the +1? I know what the fuck +1 is, please kindly read TyTy27's response - which was much nicer than the original iteration of what this comment was going to be. Jeeez, if AJ coming over here and bringing the likes of you with him is any indication, I am sad for the (declining) reading comprehension level of commenters. #alwayslosing
I am confused by your reply and your animosity.
Not sure how that answers my question about how +1 will be handled on mfing Gawker (not google), and not sure why I should deal with it.
Not sure how that answers my question about how +1 will be handled on mfing Gawker (not google), and not sure why I should deal with it.
I came for Blue States Lose, so I understand... Maybe everything will come back. Even Altarcations!
Ha! I tried to scroll through to see if it had been asked already - alas I should have just +1 your comment! I'm curious also, though I kinda heart A.J., so a hopeful curious as opposed to how much is this going to suck curious!
+1 is a ban hammerable offense here, but all over the place on Deadspin.
What will the new policy be re: +1?
What will the new policy be re: +1?
wait, does this mean Blue States Lose is coming back?!?!?!?!?!?! will that be your first act as EIC?
follow up question: are there any blue states left?
I'm sorry you don't understand how silly and trite your original post was, and your replies continue to be. Also, I got what you were trying to say, and it was stupid, my point still stands. The chain of evidence does not involve things coming out of pockets. It is not a rush to judgement to note that one cop pulled something out of his pocket and pretended like it came out of the car. If they, as the original article points out, already pulled something out of the driver's pocket - job done. Why plant evidence? But feel free to answer my point whenever... Got it now!?!?!?
eta: fixed the spelling error.
Never does the chain of evidence involve putting something into, nor pulling something out of your pockets... and no the video is not "muddy".
Also, my favorite refrain for when comments involve "why don't you write about x, y, or z instead" is why don't you read some other site?
