What 'answers'? Why did you trust this show for concrete answers to concrete questions? It's been winking like Rocket Raccoon at you since the credit music of episode one that you shouldn't do that.

I think we got a report of what happened to the 2% to underscore how much everyone is stuck with the problem of loss and inexplicable events. I think we got it as a report to underscore the ambiguity of things like 'truth' and 'reality' when it comes to building the story of our life that's going to make it livable,…

Perhaps that alien feeling has to do with the geyser of vitriol, flip contempt for people who interpret things differently, brute conclusions forced onto nuanced material, or titanic self-congratulations you are bringing to the table.

I wouldn't care about the plot if the poetic meditations and digressions were richer lately. I LOVED the djinn, quite dug the Czernobog and related weird sisters stuff—really all the first episodes. The depth has been missing of late. On the other hand, I found Laura's episode to be excellent, so I guess it's just the…

I completely agree with you in general about tv and specifically on the new Peaks, which I find to be top-form Lynch. And I'd push a nun off a cliff for just one more episode of the stellar Hannibal. With Gods, though, I'm not finding the painterly vignettes as compelling as I did in the initial stretch. My…

I think that a huge theme here is the mystery of death: how we lose people, what it means, how life goes on afterward, what kinds of stories we tell ourselves to make our world make sense. I believe in stories, and love, and I would like to say I'd stay and find a way. But my kids are young—7 and 5. If they vanished…

Like…the *Tampa Bay* Bucs?

I am guilty of thinking the cat I replied to initially was you. So, I know even less about your argument. But you still don't have one. And the only elitist schoolyard thing I'm dropping on you is that my school doesn't tolerate so many one-sentence paragraphs, you space-hog. What are you, a journalist for Reader's…

I think you are only seeing one half of their story.

I'm still all the way in, but after the first few episodes I'm not loving this like I thought I would. I love almost every moment, but something's not cohering, and I think it has to do with the fact that without the central plot, it has a hard time finding organising structures—but the central plot, without dropping…

You have *got* to be fucking kidding me. Blowing my comment (and the all-female screening) up to ludicrous dimensions—a proposed panacea for, I mean come on, anything, really—and then deriding my 'argument' on those terms *wasn't* childish, but now you're quibbling over the cheeky metaphor I used when I suggested that…

I really like how we're getting lectured about fairness of fairness and equality of equality and Constitution for everybody and such.

No. It won't.

I had a whole snarky routine I was about to do, but then I just read the Austin mayor's response, and man, it is the cat's pajamas and it can't be defeated. Not to be missed.

I think women would be more inclined to believe our gestures of goodwill, intended to at least begin to mend the damage of hundreds of years of misogyny and marginalization, if we had a little grace when they didn't want us around from time to time.

I have never, ever seen anyone pull a camera out at one of our BBQs. That hand would already have a brat, a beer, metal horns, someone else's dick, or the remote to find the Patriots game in it.

I don't normally tl;dr, but that was so egregious for a comment board I'll give you an out-summary if you want it: I dig your conviction, but rage doesn't invite your allies closer to you, invite your enemies to see contested subjects in a fresh light, or develop your mental muscles for growth, discovery, or…

Okay. This is a bad format in which to try to go heavy, but maybe enforced brevity can be our ally. Let's not infer weak flanks on each other's arguments due to omission, yeah?

Yeah, one huge salient feature is that Suchet reads like a man of Jewish descent making a hard-driving and pragmatic but also personal argument, and Stewart reads like a totally de-Jewed theorist posing his questions in the court of grand rhetoric, like a self-appointed character in what rich people with no stakes in…

Yeah, okay, there's really no fighting that one.