Yes. Though I could forgive that if they showed me something novel and/or interesting.

I am kind of disappointed that she didn't try that one, but no.

I only saw the pilot. It looked decent enough, but (uncharacteristically for me) I got hung up on stupid things about the characters and their choices. When home slice rides a HORSE into a city full of ZOMBIES and somehow manages to be shocked at what happens, I just couldn't continue.

I really need to stop defending these movies, particularly Batfleck. And yet, like the caped crusader of mediocre movie criticism, I feel I must step in and at least put teh abuse in context.

We don't like the DCEU at all and we think it's juvenile and disgusting!

They often are.

I thought it was more Breakfast Club, but yeah.

I feel like this was the "nice" episode. The show veers between the light and dark sides of its protagonists, and this episode went for the former. It also did up the emotional stakes for Gamby and Brown, who walked away with genuine respect for each other. When she finds out he burned down her house, it is going to…

This all seems right to me. People weren't wild to find out the Dr. Brown could also be a petty tyrant, but it absolutely would have been the wrong decision to make her an angel. First of all, it would make the show a lot more mean spirited than it already is. Second, I think it would kind of dehumanizing to give…

So, I think this show is moving towards a realization that "reprehensible people acted nice and sympathetic" is a way to describe almost anybody. The funny thing is that the show doesn't really agree that that is a correct way to look at any particular character. It's a refreshingly forgiving show as far as all of its…

Yeah, I feel like a lot of critics don't know what to do with this show because there isn't a protagonist the audience feels comfortable identifying with. Once I started watching it two weeks ago, it was hard to stop. Maybe it's because of the whole McBride/Hill pedigree, but this show is not getting the credit it…

Once, while she was visiting me and my family, my mother once casually mentioned that she was hot for Adam Richman. It altered my reality ever-s-slightly, but in a fundamental way such that existence has never been quite the same since that day. The end.

Oh, an appeal to the audience! That's a perfectly sound rhetorical device. For Donald Trump.

Well, first of all, I didn't leave that part of the quote out.

No reason. I suppose we should all accept as truth every allegation of criminal conduct made against any person. That seems very reasonable.

Okay, but berating people is generally poor practice even out of this context. What the article said was "questioning the validity" of the claims was somehow bad. Do you agree with that statement or not? And if so, how do you defend that intellectually?

Well, now we're whittling away the original point so much that I'm hesitant to say that the article means anything.

I'm not going to quote the whole thing again, but the functional phrase is "questioning the validity of the claims made." You can read it yourself. Maybe it's poor writing, but it says what it says.

Maybe a bad example these days, considering the Ryan Lochte stuff, but your point is well taken.

If I quoted the exact statement that the article made and commented on that statement, how is that jumping to a conclusion? In any event, it's less of a leap than citing (but not quoting) a nonspecific source and using that to support my argument.