Warning, this story is really horrific and will be heartbreaking for any fans of his, but Neil Gaiman is a sadistic [not in the BDSM sense] sexual predator with a predilection for very young women.
Paywall bypass: https://archive.is/dfXCj
Warning, this story is really horrific and will be heartbreaking for any fans of his, but Neil Gaiman is a sadistic [not in the BDSM sense] sexual predator with a predilection for very young women.
Paywall bypass: https://archive.is/dfXCj
It’s just weak evidence. Hearsay.
That’s literally what you’re arguing against believing in this thread.
I guess it’s different when you do it.
Your leap of logic is rather tenuous. Can you rephrase?
No it isn’t. You just don’t like the criticism. You’re fine believing what you call hearsay when it suits you.
I’m really not understanding your argument
And now I don’t believe you.
Just state it plainly. Succinctly. Clearly. Then there will be no room for uncertainty.
Read next time:
And what hearsay am I accused of believing?