You said it was because source protection AND liability reasons, I said 'liability' was bullshit and if anything failing to investigate makes you MORE liable if sued, and now you're saying that's NOT why it happened?

So, to clarify, you're saying liability is not a consideration and you misspoke?

@nabiscoofficial.bsky.social , what the heck is this?

The entire box is like this.

Not only does it make it incredibly difficult to eat them like I normally do, (roll them into my mouth), the sleeve of crackers is no longer smooth and sexy, but weirdly bumpy as the ovals are not lined up.

You know, if someone does this at Trump's military parade, not only would it be hilarious, but China would be faced with the most annoying decision ever whether or not to allow reporting on it.

They love showing Trump's weakness, but...referencing THAT is not something they want to do.

You may notice that article says, at the end, 'about what I viewed as a personal dispute, but I take these claims very seriously and they are all completely false.' And then has two tags: Transgender Rights and Katelyn Burns
Here's how it was posted. Check the tag:

He still, IIRC, has not commented on whether or the spreadsheet he got had that redaction or if he did it, a thing he certainly knows...and he also knows that if he did it, Reed committed a HIPAA violation.

(But he didn't, he's not a covered entity, guess he did find that expert after all.)