My stomach growled super loud in French omg
I would like to clarify my stomach did not speak French. It growled in French class I apologize
hon hon hon feed me a baguette
Why do I even go on this website
Accidentally hurting someone vs. accidentally hurting an animal
Day 77, no one suspects a thing.
I was so focused on the one dog sitting patiently in the back that I didn’t even realize
THEY ARE MARRIED!!
This is so misleading that it is frankly a lie.
First of all, “Scientists” haven’t solved anything except determined the results of a DNA test—matching a still-living descendent of the sister of a mental patient with a 126-year-old semen stain on the shawl of a single woman thought to be killed by the Ripper.
- The idea that they could have a “100% match” is highly tenuous at best; siblingship is a tricky thing to discover through DNA to begin with, and vastly more so when you take into account that they’re testing the descendent of a sibling. There’s a reason that whenever possible, geneticists prefer to test a parent as well as a sibling, given how many DNA loci are recombined to form a sibling’s DNA. They also “matched” the shawl’s owner’s bloodstain to her “three-times great-granddaughter,” proving again a “100% match.”
- The DNA evidence has not been independently verified by any authorities.
- The shawl itself, the one and only piece of physical evidence, has not been independently verified. It “is thought” to have been part of the case.
- The lead detective on the case is not a detective. He is a self-proclaimed “armchair detective” and history nut.
- He is selling a book about this. It doesn’t take an “armchair detective” to realize that a book about looking for Jack the Ripper’s identity is not going to turn a profit without showing “conclusive proof” that they’ve found the killer.
- His only other proof is the fact that Kosminski was recorded as a suspect in the 1800s by the police, who were notedly anti-Semetic (Kosminski was a Polish Jew).
- This “study,” if it can even be called that when the information was clearly biased, was reported in the Daily Mail and the Mirror, not exactly shining bastions of journalism. Look for it to be discredited very soon. I’m betting Cracked’s “B.S. News Stories that Fooled Your Facebook Friends” gets there within a week.
- The apparently brilliant scientist that has pioneered this new DNA matching technology, Dr. Jari Louhelainen, is hardly a standout in his field. He is not decorated, has received no awards or fellowships that I’ve been able to find, and is a professor at a college that has turned out only one notable alumnus in the scientific field, ever (and she is an astrophysicist).
- Even if the shawl and its two spots of purported DNA were not obviously of over-inflated importance (and if they could be verified), that is far from saying the mystery of Jack the Ripper is solved. All that would be in today’s courtroom is a single piece of circumstantial evidence for ONE of five serial murders.
- The newspaper that reported this is a tabloid.
- The “detective” is an amateur with a book to sell.
- The “scientist” is a lecturer at a new university in England that focuses on sports.
- The “evidence” is over-hyped and far from conclusive.
- The “evidence” only points to Kosminski for ONE murder out of five.
This is not research. This is sensationalism. The mystery of Jack the Ripper is far from solved.
"Oh my GOD Carl I am so done with you.”
"There is one scene in the book where Gus goes to a gas station, and he tries to buy a pack of cigarettes because it’s the only way he can assert his own independence after becoming very sick. He [Ansel] did that scene so much justice, and he brought his all. It was midnight when we filmed it, and he just sat there and lost it for hours. I was just sort of in awe." - Shailene Woodley
the female body is hardcore as fuck.
Yes is it.
so is the male body
it’s sad to see so many people like this on this website
OP is praising the fact that women hold a fucking infant in their belly the size of a ribcage, get the fuck over yourself for 3.5 seconds.
When men talk of women and girls in terms of legal/not legal, what they’re really saying is “I already sexually objectify this child and would attempt to fuck her if there were no laws in the way.”
You can’t deny that is fucking scary.
Sometimes there are things that just sort of vaguely seem wrong, but you can’t put your finger on why…until it’s worded like this, and suddenly everything slides into place and you feel like someone punched you in the gut.
i want people to know i’m struggling but i don’t want people to know i’m struggling do you see my problem