@avclub-62812d8eb06386505986efff8b5e43ac:disqus  Mine was more likely a combination of still-not-awake-yet, bad iPhone typing, and light rail.  My mistake more than Apple's, in this case.

@avclub-6dfb04136529fba8a8b870b91b59f8e6:disqus  I just did a quick check on 1 Corinthians in the original Greek and the list includes "effeminate" and "homosexuals" as separate entities.  "Effeminate" translates as "soft ones" and "homosexuals" as "sodomites," so I'm pretty sure Paul wrote what he meant.  I'm not…

@avclub-6dfb04136529fba8a8b870b91b59f8e6:disqus  I just did a quick check on 1 Corinthians in the original Greek and the list includes "effeminate" and "homosexuals" as separate entities.  "Effeminate" translates as "soft ones" and "homosexuals" as "sodomites," so I'm pretty sure Paul wrote what he meant.  I'm not…

@avclub-c8ebeb11305fb42343aec8fa393647da:disqus  I haven't re-watched the scene and I didn't remember her setting herself up so badly.  If that's the case, I stand corrected.  Thanks!

@avclub-c8ebeb11305fb42343aec8fa393647da:disqus  I haven't re-watched the scene and I didn't remember her setting herself up so badly.  If that's the case, I stand corrected.  Thanks!

Actually, admonishment of homosexuality is right smack in the New Testament, as well, along with lying, drunkenness, mistreating employees, and so on.  So it's an awfully disingenuous misdirection, in my book.

Actually, admonishment of homosexuality is right smack in the New Testament, as well, along with lying, drunkenness, mistreating employees, and so on.  So it's an awfully disingenuous misdirection, in my book.

Nice catch, Miller.  May I blame my iPhone?  That's a weird auto-correct, if so.

Nice catch, Miller.  May I blame my iPhone?  That's a weird auto-correct, if so.

For someone who referred to himself as a New Teatament man, Bartlett sure didn't hesitate to beat up that ignorant woman with Levitical laws which were later fulfilled and no longer necessary to follow. The level of Sorkin's disingenuity on that one soared through the roof.

For someone who referred to himself as a New Teatament man, Bartlett sure didn't hesitate to beat up that ignorant woman with Levitical laws which were later fulfilled and no longer necessary to follow. The level of Sorkin's disingenuity on that one soared through the roof.

deleted

Watch some of the interview material on the DVDs.  Other than seeming like a genuinely nice guy, he's not very Sarcenesque at all.  I shouldn't just assume typecasting, but his real life modest confidence was a bit shocking at first.

Watch some of the interview material on the DVDs.  Other than seeming like a genuinely nice guy, he's not very Sarcenesque at all.  I shouldn't just assume typecasting, but his real life modest confidence was a bit shocking at first.

@ Tracys Face I guess that's my conclusion as well if I intellectualize it, but it's an afterthought rather than my gut reaction.

For me, the movie is ridiculously flawed because Scottie ignores Midge's affections. I think she's about a zillion times hotter than Madiene. In that, one could argue that it's a pretty realistic depiction of how a guy will sometimes chase the unobtainable, more stereotypical lust object and ignore the possible…

Just curious: Why do people hate that episode so much?  I don't follow that sort of thing, so this thread is the first I've seen it called out.

Just curious: Why do people hate that episode so much?  I don't follow that sort of thing, so this thread is the first I've seen it called out.

Saw it twice. The second time was to calibrate my reaction to it the first time. I knew it was a bit uneven but wildly good, and couldn't understand the shrugs of indifference.

Saw it twice. The second time was to calibrate my reaction to it the first time. I knew it was a bit uneven but wildly good, and couldn't understand the shrugs of indifference.