Maybe some biologists can weigh in on this, but I've always understood an "organism" to be a living thing capable of achieving homeostasis and existing as a stable whole. In other words, to my understanding it can't be just an attachment to something else -- it must be an independent, living thing or it's not an organism.

So by defining as human any "organism" with human genes, aren't they just saying that human life begins at birth (or at least viability)?

Hey, look, man -- I respect your willingness to take an unpopular view of Captain Sullenberger. All stories need various perspectives; though I don't agree with yours, I'm glad there's someone there to take it.

But seriously, give it a bone -- you're the only one still concerned with whether this guy is a hero. In the end it doesn't matter -- no one's electing him president or asking him to fix the economy. Some people just think the dude's got a set of brass nuts, and are willing to call him "hero" for it. I can't imagine why that gets up your goat so much -- but it seems to be your main topic lately.

"Hustling" (in the sense of running hard) is not sexual. (If it is...uh, maybe I need to have a couple of words with my high school football coach -- he was always demanding more hustle.) Curly hair or a nice smile are physical descriptors, and therefore a little closer to the line -- but they're far from "nice tits" or "ooo, hot mama."

This sort of absolutism bothers me. Compliments are not in and of themselves problematic or harrassing -- they're often a good thing. True, unsolicited comments that demean women (whether by commenting on their body or by demanding something of them, like a smile) are bad -- but this isn't that.

But in a broader sense, if we really can't draw a distinction between social interactions that are positive and interactions that are negative, and if our default position is instead "no interacting," then...well, we lose quite a bit. In this case, we lose the positive feelings of two people trying out a new way to make people happy. Worse still, we tar them with the label of "harassers" for doing something innocent and kind for fellow human beings.

Before we get out the tar brush, maybe we should ask if we really, truly cannot draw a distinction between their actions and the actions of a construction crew commenting on a woman's body as she walks by.

I think you're both exactly right -- it sounds like an in-joke from Stephen Colbert. It's just such an extraordinary and unusual thing for someone to say -- that someone's "dead" to them -- that it makes me suspect that it wasn't meant seriously but rather as part of the ordinary back-and-forth funny banter of guys. In fact, I can name at least two other guys who have said exactly that phrase to me -- and it was always meant affectionately. (For example: "I can't make the game on Sunday, man, I gotta work." "Work, huh? That's it, you're dead to me.")

Hell, "dead to me" is hardly even exceptional in male banter. I have several friends who routinely joke about stabbing each other. For example: "Hey, if you see Billy, tell that motherf***er I'm gonna cut his ass for not comin' to my party." It's just guy talk. It means "Hey, tell Billy I missed him, and I hope he can make it out some time because I'd really like to see him." It doesn't mean that Billy is actually going to get stabbed.

Similarly, I doubt this groom meant that the LW's husband was really "dead" to him. More likely he meant "damn, wish your husband could have made it. Tell him I was thinking about him." Guys just talk like that sometimes.

Now, I can't be SURE that the groom was joking -- it's possible that he was dead serious, and, if so, he's not only an asshole, but also a pretentious drama queen ("Dead to me?" Really?). But my money says that he made a bad joke, she ran off all dramatically (while he sat there wondering what the hell just happened), and things went downhill from there.

Remember also, of course, that this is a wedding. So the groom is thinking everyone's in a happy, jokey place -- and that his funny comment will be understood for what it is (and not a serious expression of anything), because everyone's in a good mood. But what he doesn't know is that the LW isn't in a good mood -- in fact, she's in a bad, bad place, pissed off about the money thing, feeling left out, alone without her husband... It's unfortunate -- and a man has to know which of his friends he can joke with and which can't take a joke -- but unless he really was serious, I have a hard time blaming him. (Then, once a scene was created, I have a hard time blaming the bride for being pissed about it.)

So, yeah LW, if you want them as friends, I'd say to apologize first and then try to move forward. Or just move on with your life...friendships end sometimes, and it's not the end of the world. But, either way, strongly consider the possibility that the dude was joking.