she stopped me before I mentioned the threats he made to kill people and told me that she is a mandated reporter

Your therapist will comply with her mandated reporter obligations, but does not consider herself to be in the business of tricking clients into saying things that will force her to breach confidentiality. You got close to her line, so she reminded you exactly where it was and gave you the option to either cross it and cause a report to law enforcement, or to stop short and talk about things that she can lawfully keep in confidence.

Amputate one of your balls.

More humorous than catastrophic in my particular instance, but a similar miscommunication involving different people could have gone worse.

I greet a friend as we pass in the quad and say, "What're you up to?" He replies, "Looking for someone to pound my ass all night. How about you?"

Now I thought I was being propositioned, and politely declined. He said that while I did have an open invitation to join him in such recreational activities, he was on the way to ask someone else more likely to be interested. He didn't notice the double entendre until I answered and only meant to return the question by asking what I was up to.

Gypsies, sexual deviants, trade unionists, ... just the usual suspects, nothing to be alarmed about.

You'd think by now one of these digital media gurus would have invented some sort of feature where a user could replay a complicated scene or a subtle bit of dialog. Then their subscribers could properly appreciate more sophisticated cinematography.

TNT has an energy density of 1kcal/g. This means that a stick of dynamite contains less energy than a stick of butter.

Home Despot

Obviously dependent on the number of comments, let's call that n. Maybe as often as n^-0.6^ in unemotional topics, and closer to n^-1.5^ for politics and current events. Comment score is a better predictor of comment age than comment quality.

At 9 comments in 2 hours, it's already false in this thread.

It's usually not classified this way, but I consider 99 Bottles of Beer on the Wall a New Year's song. It combines two of the main NYE traditions -- alcohol and counting backwards.

Hi there, our algorithm thinks you might be suicidal. So we sent some cops to your house to shoot your dog and see if you're okay. We aren't trying to save your life and don't expect our response to improve your situation in any way. We're doing everything we can to avoid legal culpability and ensure that your recent or eventual death is officially classified as "not our fault".

I was a volunteer admin on the site ~15 years ago. I think I still have privileges there, but haven't been actively editing or adminning recently due to a long series of policy changes that removed almost all of the site's appeal to users such as myself. The site split from ehow due to a founders' dispute over the value of crowdsourcing and wiki-spirited openness. Now that wikihow is doing everything that Jack Herrick hated about ehow, I think it's time to call his experiment a failure.

Most of the content is now being created by staff writers, often for advertising sponsors. Often not even a how-to topic. Many of these articles are fully protected. It's very much the sort of crap I used to delete, when I was deleting crap for them. Most non-staff articles are hidden and unsearchable.

There is no quality control. Staff have openly embraced SEO and clickbait engagement metrics, at the expense of factual accuracy. This has resulted in the mass emigration of editors like me who used to provide fact-checking services. The "expert review" is a joke. It's only there because Google thinks it makes the site credible. Google is wrong and are defrauding their searchers too.

There is no editing community anymore. Some children like the gamification aspects and use user spaces as a social media and chat site. It's not well-suited for that purpose, but they're children and don't know any better. I think one editor from my era is still active. I don't know why he's still there.

They're arguably violating the copyright of their editors by hiding the history tabs and denying CC-BY attribution. They did CYA by only using the CC licensing for external reuse, while granting wikihow broad rights to use submitted content commercially and without attribution. This policy was not as well advertised as the Creative Commons part, and no doubt some of the content creators from my era either didn't notice, or expected wikihow to not abuse it. Hiding this also adversely affects readers' ability to access an article's reliability by checking for better versions and impedes the transition from reader to editor.

I clicked expecting chloroform.