Davy retweeted
'The Boys' star Antony Starr reacts to fans who think that Homelander is redeemable
"F*cking hell, man... Hope you don't have kids, don't breed"
I wanna tattoo my other knee so bad, but the thing that makes me not want to is well I kinda like…. Walking
Davy retweeted
This is super sad because Danny Trejo will do any movie, including student films where he works for free just to get a young filmmakers project off the ground.
You have to be the actual devil to take advantage of someone that has that kind of work ethic and love for his craft.
Davy retweeted
Sometimes, I wonder how much of my life would be different if I had been braver at the right moments. The conversations I avoided, the opportunities I overthought, the people I never approached,. Regret is a strange thing because it makes you mourn lives you never actually lived.
Davy retweeted
This is the kind of healthcare you'll tell Americans needs fixing, and they'll call you a dirty communist.
A 22-year-old’s inhaler jumped from $66 to $539 overnight. Unable to afford both his medication and rent, he paid rent.
Five days later, he suffered a fatal asthma attack.
On January 10, 2024, Cole Schmidtknecht went to refill the daily preventative inhaler he had relied on for years.
Because his insurance no longer covered it, the price had risen to $539.19.
Cole left without the medication and relied on his emergency rescue inhaler instead.
On January 15, he suffered a severe asthma attack.
His roommate rushed him toward the hospital, but Cole became unresponsive and went into cardiac arrest.
He suffered catastrophic brain damage and was placed on life support.
Six days later, on January 21, his family made the decision to remove life support.
Cole passed away aged just 22.
His parents later sued Walgreens and pharmacy-benefit manager OptumRx, alleging he had received no advance warning of the coverage change and was not offered an affordable alternative.
They argue that losing access to his preventative medication led directly to his fatal asthma attack.
The companies have contested the allegations, and the federal case remains ongoing.
Davy retweeted
“No child of mine is watching a black mermaid!”
Same guy: “Tonight we live stream the execution as a family”
The Pentagon Is Going to Livestream a Firing Squad Execution
rollingstone.com/politics/po…
Davy retweeted
Pretty cool scene with Tom DeLonge tearing up as he watched and heard Petco Park sing “All The Small Things”. So awesome
Davy retweeted
‘Shin Godzilla 2’ has reportedly begun production and is expected to start filming this November.
(source: smart-flash.jp/entertainment…)
Davy retweeted
If you spin kick a dad at a hardcore show his divorce papers fly out of his pockets like Sonic rings
Davy retweeted
"A child not embraced by the village will burn it down to feel it’s warmth."
Davy retweeted
He got the info from a scam site. He identified the wrong woman. He will now face a soul-crushing lawsuit, at a minimum. He ruined his life because he was so determined to dox a victim of rape. Congratulations, Michael.
You're the biggest loser.
After identifying Jane Doe earlier tonight, I have now removed the information I published. Why? Because the principle has been served: to underscore that permanently anonymizing litigants who make sensational, spectacular, reputation-destroying claims about others -- so long as they can self-declare some form of victimization -- cannot be countenanced.
It's destructive, and an egregious abuse of the legal system by huckster plaintiff's lawyers. This practice has to end. Lawyers who seek to monetize this sleazy tactic should have to think A LOT HARDER about the claims they're willing to throw out into the public domain, using impressionable clients who may not even know what they're getting themselves into.
So why have I now removed her information?
Because I don't believe she's the main "villain" here. I primarily blame the bottom-feeding, media-manipulating, sleazebag lawyers who've made a whole cash-grab industry out of this racket.
Thomas Giuffra in particular has a lot to answer for. He's the central reason for the current debacle.
Given the intense nationwide and global interest in this case, I don't want to bring any further negative attention to this woman. I don't believe she ought to be punished or subjected to any retribution or humiliation. I believe a RATIONAL solution is necessary here. Not more character assassination -- of her, the seven young men, or anyone else. Truly, that is my genuine view.
I also recognize there are unique factors that must be taken into account given the hugely outsized publicity of this case.
So that's why I have removed the information. The aforementioned principle has been served: eroding the premise that anyone who claims any form of victimization is entitled to permanent anonymity, even as their lawyer(s) use the courts -- aided by a compliant media -- to name & shame others for the most heinous of crimes. No matter how lacking in credibility their own claims might be, or contradicted by mountains of other evidence.
That's all I ever sought to accomplish here. Not to impugn this young woman on a personal level. I have no animus toward her, and never have. I sincerely wish her the best, and hope her life is not defined by this calamity.
I completely stand by the accuracy of what I reported as to Jane Doe's identity. This is not a retraction -- it's an independent discretionary judgment I alone have made. No lawyers or anyone else have influenced this decision.









































