I heard someone clarify that it's not so much answering with the word no, as it is dismissing the implication of the headline. In most cases that's a no, but it's easy enough to flip the meaning.
If the heading is avoiding making a statement, it's because the statement is false/unsupported.
The denial after the fact is a necessary coping mechanism. Otherwise, they will suffer from the guilt of killing their child.
Which they absolutely did.
Is this a "Brewster's Millions" scenario, where it has to be wasted, or do you just have to buy a bunch of crap?
Also, I'm presuming you aren't counting time for the check/etc to clear. Otherwise, very few of us could ever even conceivably make that level of transaction.
California is net neutral. Whether it's a giver or taker state depends on the year and the exact criteria used, but it's never very far from even.
That said, sister relief is an area that California gets the shaft.
Why would he care about the lawsuits? It won't ever come out of his pocket. It just becomes someone else's problem.
An electrified future would be the only silver lining that can come from all of this, even if it is from swastikars. The chargers (going forward) are standardized and universal, so the infrastructure will work for others as well.
24 minutes, yikes!
TL;DW:
What was your high score?
Most instances defederated from them. I'm kinda surprised db0 isn't one of them.
The idea is to get people to click random and unhelpful links. The song is mildly annoying, but otherwise harmless.
Earlier practice was to link to a shock site. The best known was goatse, but tubgirl and lemon party were also common.
This might be interesting. I turned off all of my Google history years ago. I presume they still collected all of it.
This could reveal some of that.
Why would you ever think that dealing with Wells Fargo was going to be in your best interest?