Pretty sure that guy has been signing his posts and putting a quip in them for a long time. I don't know why, but everybody's got a thing.

I don't think they were full of junk. I think Mary Steenburgen (and whoever she's working with) wanted Boyd to steal those deeds.

Is it so implausible that he wants to just buy a simple country house, where he can dry-hump prostitutes before slitting their throats?

I was so glad we got a montage of Jerry riffing about the Notary Public life. Usually Leslie gets those; it was nice to see Jerry get a moment in the sun.

As much as Raylan resorts to unnecessary violence or outright breaks the law, it should. But even by this point, The Shield had already created a tremendous sense of the shitstorm Mackey and the Strike Team's constant lawbreaking was causing for everyone else. On Justified, everyone seems to be mildly annoyed with…

Today, yeah.

Good. It's been too long since these were on the air. I miss my USA 80s afternoon block, and it was a real disappointment when GSN shifted to newer game shows.

Does anyone else wonder if Raylan will ever be held accountable for all the over-the-line stuff he does?

A lot of people seem to think he sounds full of himself in this interview, but to me he sounds more like he's high on pills or something.

Yeah, I saw that list when it was published. There are some great ones; I like #9 as a series of errors that completely invalidates the entire premise of the article. And a few others that are so deeply riddled with errors as to be inexplicable, but I can't remember them right now.

I bet he writes an article later this year titled "Nic Pizzolatto has heard all of your criticisms of True Detective. Here's why he should listen." and remains completely in the dark about the irony of it.

The money, I imagine. But also because they don't really want to write about television; they want to write cultural and sociopolitical "thinkpieces" refracted through television and call it "TV criticism."

That's mildly disappointing. On the other hand, throwing a cup of tea at a politician sounds like something Alan Partridge might do.

"And that little trapezoid who nobody liked grew up to be… Roy Cohn."

Their model of "constantly needing to update and correct all the mistakes in their stories" would seem to be a solid gambit for drawing in repeat visitors. Who knows WHAT corrections will have been made to a story you've already read?!

Plus a writer some of you might remember has written an article titled "Lena Dunham has heard all of your criticisms of Girls. She just doesn’t care."

I thought the panel format was really good for the Jeselnik Offensive, so of course it was like the only one of the shows Comedy Central handed out to a comedian in 2013 that they didn't renew.

Beyond the proofreading error, what does this mean? I didn't watch the episode yet; this description sounds like Wilmore keeps cups of "strong tea" and "weak tea" on his desk, and throws one at a panelist when he determines her/his answer to be strong or weak, respectively.

http://chainsawsuit.com/com…

HaaaaamBURGER.