Whoops, looks like someone didn't quite get it, me thinks. Or maybe I didn't get it, but I'm pretty sure that I did …

I mean, I guess if context isn't your thing …

You're welcome.

I can't take someone seriously who actually thought The Walking Dead killed Glenn off.

He's Asian, of course he can stuff himself under it!

Oh my god of course Glenn is alive.

How was it not obvious from the git that Glenn was going to survive? Granted, as soon as they fell I thought, "Hey, awesome, they're finally killing off Glenn" ('cos I kind of hate Glenn, for really no good reason). And when blood started flowing I said to myself "Oh, OK, so Nicholas is getting eaten, and Glenn's…

An interesting thing is that people are only responding to the fact that you're questioning it, not a response to your suggestion of an alternative narrative.

Didn't they show him interacting with people in the episode previous to this? Like, he handed someone other than Elliot a bag, he spoke with Darla and several other characters … did he not? Those actions made me decide that he was definitely a real character. Or, at least, as real as everyone else.

I call bread slices "Harwell Whackers".

That's OK. It seemed too good to be true, but regardless, I would be more upset to never have read that at all.

"We haven't had to overthrow a corrupt government in 150 years! We don't need guns, because obviously our government cares about us and would never do anything to harm us! Fuck guns, I'm going to totally ignore the fact that the OP said it has nothing to do with hunting!"

No freakin' way he said that.

Look, I'm glad that Tracy was able to even do the interview. I would like nothing more than for him to be better and fully recuperated.

Vince Vaughn isn't someone I … enjoy … But I do like his opinion on guns, it would seem.

I know, I just really wanted to take a potshot at the alleged "journalism" of the AV Club ;)

This is not a valid response for enumerate reasons.

Everyone's mistreated today. Well, people from any group. Some groups are mistreated less. Some significantly less. Some so much less it's as though they're not being mistreated at all!

Hah, silly fella. They don't have editors here. If they did it wouldn't explain the fact that every single article is riddled with spelling and gratuitous grammatical errors.

History really shouldn't matter in this scenario. Equality isn't only about how a group was treated in the past, it's about how they're treated now. Historic inequality is a bad thing but people shouldn't only use that to weigh it against how people are treated today—ie, transgendered people have been mistreated in…