Whedonesque said the 24th.

Wait -- they posted the message on the 24th -- but you're right -- it's today.

Oops.

He voiced a Batman Beyond character named "Zander." That's amusing.

You think that's bad, try having The Hands Resist Him hanging over your headboard. One set of owners set up a motion detector camera because they convinced themselves that the figures were coming out of the painting and running around at night.

eBay also sold an allegedly haunted wine cabinet, which now has its own Web site.

t my diamond shoes are too damned tight

The bastards took away my music! Time to buy speakers for the iPod.

I can no longer listen to LaunchCast on my work computer. When they upgraded my equipment, they also blocked most internet radio stations. At least I can still listen to clips on Amazon, Tower, and CD Baby. I still need to shop

t /my diamond shoes are too damned tight

Edited for lack of brain fuctionality.

Yes, this. I just feel sorry for the child. The mother seems pretty fucked up to go to such lengths to conceive and then run the father through the ringer. That right there would tempt me to seek at least equal custody--to do what I could to insure the child's emtional well-being as best I could. Most of my sympathy in this case goes to the child.

Be sympathetic to the child if you want, but explain to me why the father should have feelings for the child other than what the average man on the street might have. Yes, the child shares some DNA with him, but the mother has to take all the responsibility for the pregnancy. The man did nothing that any reasonable person could justify as trying to ger her pregnant, or even taking the chance of accidentally impregnating her. If anything, they, as a couple, went out of their way to avoid an accidental pregnancy.

She then, without his knowledge, impregnated herself. It was an act of a single person, not a couple. It's the same as if she stole a random sperm bank sample. Quite frankly, if I were the judge, I'd take the child away from the mother, who appears to have some serious problems.

I'm with those that think the guy being the father falls more into coincidence land than anything else. She pretty much might as well have roofied him and stole his jizz.

In a magical world (well, it wouldn't have happened) he'd say "What? You crazy woman! Give me the child and never see it again!" But I don't think he should have any mandated responsibility, fiscal or otherwise.

In the Tribune article, she does contest his version of events (about the "only three blow jobs" thing). The court case was limited to determine the question: "If his version of events was true, could a lawsuit proceed?"

eta: or maybe somone who is not IANAL could phrase this better....

She then, without his knowledge, impregnated herself. It was an act of a single person, not a couple. It's the same as if she stole a random sperm bank sample. Quite frankly, if I were the judge, I'd take the child away from the mother, who appears to have some serious problems.

I'm with DX and ita on this.

Quite frankly, if I were the judge, I'd take the child away from the mother, who appears to have some serious problems.

Unless the mother is clinically diagnosed with "serious problems" that threaten her baby's health or safety, a judge will have a difficult time taking that child away. The legal default is that a child is better off with a parent or parents. The state must prove that she is an unfit mother. What she did to get pregnant is questionable, to say the least, but it wasn't criminal.