3 ms·
I don't think that they were confused or in denial about whether it was necessary for purposes of a legal requirement. It seems that they were agnostic on that,
by glenstein 3y ago
I don't think that they were confused or in denial about whether it was necessary for purposes of a legal requirement. It seems that they were agnostic on that, and saying that it would be better if the law itself didn't require that emotional distress be asserted and proven.
- MOARDONGZPLZ 3y agoMy mistake. Looks like I can’t edit or delete my post at this point unfortunately.