"How dare you steal from us the thing we made publicly available which we use to make money from all the stuff we stole!"...is quite the position for them to take.

In fairness, the OP just said the uncle died. He didn't say the uncle didn't get run over by a bus or fell off a cliff or was forced to watch the Home Shopping Network.

I'm curious as to why you think enjoying video games precludes one from also reading a book.

Are you lying or do you really just not know what you're talking about?

First of all, it was not a public meeting and the public did NOT know it happened until long after it happened. It was only after the New York Times was about to publish a piece on it well after the election that Don Jr. came forward and provided his emails on Twitter. Prior to that, the Trump campaign repeatedly lied and said nothing had ever occurred. Second of all, the very fact that secret meeting took place, where the Trump campaign accepted a meeting with a hostile foreign government to receive stolen information is 100% proof of collusion on its own. There is plenty of other pieces of evidence (George Papadopolous, for example) but that one meeting alone is all that is needed to prove the collusion.

So, again, are you lying or just completely ignorant to what happened and the timetable on which it occurred?

It is at this point we can stop taking whoever wrote that article seriously. Mueller's report found copius evidence of collusion. Anyone saying otherwise is lying or woefully ignorant.

What Mueller DIDN'T find was strong enough evidence to charge Donald Trump or his son for a crime in one of the few narrowly allowed areas in which he was allowed to investigate (though, Mueller's report all but said Trump Jr.'s actions at Trump Tower violated the law). But that is a completely different thing than saying Mueller didn't find collusion. Mueller found countless pieces of collusion.

Again, if this writer is saying otherwise, he/she is being dishonest or has absolutely no idea what is going on in the world he/she is writing about.

I'm not sure exactly what you're saying...are you trying to claim that voluntary decisions made by private companies is the same thing as government mandated restrictions on speech?

If this is not what you're saying, would you mind explaining what you do mean?

You nailed it:

I’m a features reporter at The Philadelphia Inquirer. I was previously a reporter for “A More Perfect Union,” a yearlong project at the Inquirer examining racism in Philly’s founding institutions. Before that I worked at The Boston Globe as a metro reporter and at The New York Times as a researcher. My first job was as an investigative fellow at Rewire News, a national site focused on reproductive health. I grew up in Philadelphia and graduated from Yale.

Source: https://www.zoehgreenberg.com/

Thank you. Saves us the trouble of having to find our hook. :-)

Boy, you sure hustled the shit outta them. :-)

I wish I had mod points right now, this is very spot on. Students don't come out of college "more liberal" because of "indoctrination", they are just exposed to new things, new people, new ideas they likely had never happened to encounter prior to attending college. It's the same concept as when a racist talks about how bad some different ethnic group is but "except for Johnny...I know him and he's nothing like that. He's good people" or whatever.

Again, good post.

I'm guessing you meant this response to someone else? I'm not sure what you're getting at here, if not.

Oh, my, you haven't lived in America in the last 50 years?

I haven't checked in a while, but isn't Kodi simply a media client, and not a server? What if you have family who want access to the media? What if you want to limit what media different members of the family can see (for example, I don't want children to see my Dexter collection). What if you want your settings to be consistent across all your devices without having to touch all your devices? What if you want to watch your media outside the home?

Kodi is a fine product, but I don't see it as a comparison to Plex, because it isn't really the same kind of product as Plex.

There are several reasons.

1. The biggest one for many...because you are a long time user and it is what you know.
2. Plex is a more polished product.
3.Plex, particularly with Plex Pass (which I bought Lifetime for around $100 over a decade ago), has more features than alternatives.
4. Plex has better (read: better, not good) support for subtitles.
5. Some people like the free TV additions.
6.It is, generally speaking, easier to install/set up.
7.It is the most popular media server, which means it has more information about it if something goes wrong.

Is it the best? Well, that, of course, depends on what you're looking for, and there are certainly many drawbacks to Plex. But, overall, the pros mostly outweigh the cons.

While I understand, I believe, the general concept of your position, I think the point that you are not including is that there already is someone who is responsible for the liability. What I mean is that if I post libel against you on Twitter or send it through email to a third party, I am liable for my libel. I am not acting as an employee of Twitter or Google (for our hypothetical, at least) and, as such, Google/Twitter are merely the public space in which I have uttered my libelous comment. It is, in essence I believe, no different than me walking into Wal-Mart and slandering you to passerbys. In that instance, Wal-Mart is not responsible for what I said and neither should Google/Twitter.

That is what makes it different than, for example, a paid employee of the New York Times who published a news article. Twitter/Google isn't the author (either directly or by proxy), I am. And, so, your lawsuit would be against me. And that is why I, with great respect to your position, do not agree with you that it is "a bit two-faced".