avclub-0a7d83f084ec258aefd128569dda03d7--disqus
humanist
avclub-0a7d83f084ec258aefd128569dda03d7--disqus

…or maybe midgets?

Tough room!

I love Donnie Darko as much as the next guy, but how highly defined do we really need this to be?

Oh, Clayton. Clayton, Clayton, Clayton. You mean "discreetly".

Such a shame when people insist on making connections between life and art.

I admit Obama's sense of humor is a lovely bonus to the overall package he brought to the White House, but I really don't care whether Clinton is naturally funny. I do appreciate that she's smart enough to be funny when scripted, something that eludes a great number of politicians.

Yeah, I thought it went without saying that (1) as an audience member, I'm qualified to have and express an opinion about an art work—unlike, say, a physicist with a crackpot intelligent design theory, and that (2) I do not assume my opinion is shared with anyone. Clearly, given the faddish success of these dramedy TV

What I'd like to know is whether the realization of this show is different/more entertaining than the preview makes it out to be. I always find it a bad sign when a trailer contains jokes that aren't funny, but sometimes it's because it's been assembled to sell a different product from what the creator intended.

Dammit, missed my chance to say "I gladly am a fan of Sam, I am."

They sell it at Trader Joe's, and have for at least 10 years, so apparently lots of people do. I usually water it down a bit, but straight from the bottle it's definitely drinkable. It's just not a drinkable dessert like most fruit juice products.

I heard if you sync them up perfectly, the black goat reveals the true nature of free will.

If Sam is responsible for the Simpsons screen capture accompanying his article, then I declare that I am a fan of Sam.

It's always better for you to eat the fruit than to drink juice made from it.

So is it official policy for all concerned to pretend that Heroes never happened?

I only became aware of this after writing my previous comment. But I'm still just as mystified about why he has this following and how he gets such illustrious guests.

OK, glad to know I'm not some insane, out-of-step curmudgeon. (About this, anyway.)

OK, I'm not a podcast person, but I'll rarely pass up a chance to get my Wiig fix.

… Did it though? I'm guessing maybe it might have helped me make sense of tumultuous times, if it had ever been on my radar, been regularly discussed/reminisced by any friends, acquaintances, or avclub writers. I feel the show just didn't succeed well enough to be talked about, and thus didn't reach far into anybody's

One Chord Wonder's response is the right one. We don't define disorders by impact on population genetic fitness (which, generally speaking, takes care of itself through natural selection). We define them based on how much they interfere with quality of life. This is why of the common sexual orientations, pedophilia is

That's an interesting point. And I think we can agree that professional "success" at least is not terribly subjective. But we're no longer in the days where in order to objectively succeed as a comedian you need to make 90% of people laugh. You just need your core following to be large enough, even if it's a pretty