http://gawker.com/5333523/cult+officiated-weddings-are-sweaty-pickled-affairs

Hey look, another pair who went the Universal Life route! (I am obsessed.) Brittan Heller attended Yale Law, where she met Nathaniel Gleicher during a boring series of semi-flirtatious encounters, which the Times recounts in tedious detail, at information sessions for prospective students. In one conversation, Gleicher (fresh off a stint in St. Vincent and the Grenadines) defended his Peace Corps cred: "Everyone thought it was a cushy assignment on a Caribbean beach," he said. But in reality, he told her, in his two years there he found poverty and AIDS, and wrestled with the area's odd inconsistencies. (People had cellphones and flat-screen televisions, he said, but often no running water.)"

Hmm. Sounds like … a cushy assignment on a Caribbean beach!

Anyway, a gentle question for Heller: girl, didn't your long national nightmare as one of the two Yale Law students who sued the AutoAdmit trolls teach you better than to weave your tragic tale into your Times wedding announcement? Just wondering, because I did not know your name before, but now that you piqued my interest I sure do!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1473234&forum_id=2#16491475)

no wonder those tools fled to korea and afghanistan

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1473234&forum_id=2#16491531)

The loss of the right to anonymous speech online would be a grave blow to the

vibrancy of the public sphere. At the same time, however, anonymity can foster

vicious attacks, especially those that would be socially unacceptable in

traditional public discourse. This phenomenon cannot be erased entirely—

indeed, it should not be. The wholesale elimination of such unpleasant speech

would necessarily encompass valuable, protected speech in its sweep.

Nevertheless, the increasing complexity of the online environment demands

standards that govern online speech with increasing nuance. By distinguishing

between speech targeted at private and public figures, and by distinguishing

speech on public controversies, the standard that this Note proposes would

ensure heightened protection for the speech that is most beneficial to the public

sphere while simultaneously providing the targets of anonymous harassment a

balanced opportunity to unmask their attackers.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1473234&forum_id=2#18205781)