Fair enough, I share your orneriness. And it might, maybe, just possibly, be the case that the person complaining about the person complaining about the people complaining about a negative video game review is even MORE insufferable. Complaining.

"I take it you could still understand what I was saying, yes?"

Oh god. It's a fucking joke, dude, no one really thinks the game would be improved if Drake was hauled off to The Hague.

"Is there anything more tiresome than the "you're not playing it right" response to a negative game review?"

"And why do capitalize random nouns?"

I'm a pretty big Sorkin apologist, but this show was pretty insufferable. I mean…god, I don't even want to list all the problems. Who has that kind of time?

I can't believe NIN contributed to this. U2 seems like one of those bands Reznor should hate on principal.

I think they might try, but I doubt there'd be too big of an effect. We're just too accustomed to being able to borrow any book we want for almost free (and actually free, in some cities). You can take "The Corrections" out of Barnes & Noble, but how do you get it out of the libraries?

I dunno- I'm tempted to say that if she made a public stink, she'd get her way in the end- if only because of PR. But then again, didn't her first choice for director get rejected?

Jeez, you guys sure are hung up on commenting on how you're not gonna comment on that extra "n".

"I'll put aside the obvious quip about being shot out of a "canon" for that blatant and all too common misspelling."

Meh, it's pretty well-established that there's enough deeper themes, meanings, and symbols to keep adults more than amused. And anyway, most of the "cannon" of English literature (Steinbeck, Dickens, The Scarlet Letter, F451) are assigned to junior high or high school kids anyway, so it's pretty clear that the age…

Is a middling Fox/SciFi Channel series that aired in the 90s really "much more obvious" than an AV Club darling that just aired last week? I kinda doubt it…

The problem is, the whole, "they were actually OUR ANCESTORS!" idea isn't really that interesting or new, and I don't think it does much to advance the themes, stories, or characters of the series. I don't see why it was so necessary that we should forgive illogical actions just because they get us to that point.

Maybe, but the problem is, there was never any explanation of WHY "God" did it, why he did it THAT way, why he wanted to do it, what he can and can't do, etc. Which, of course, it'd be pretty ballsy of a show to try to define "God" that much. But without it, you've got a god who works in a pretty roundabout and often…

"What was so "wrong" about the dance scene?"

"Also, I find it interesting that any time philosophy is used in a film, its is considered hokey or "pseudo-profound""

Being only a sophomore in college, I was unable to articulate why I didn't like that movie beyond "too much philosophy"- which didn't convince any of my philosophy major friends, of course.

I would really hate to see yet another media protrayal of gimp absent-fatherhood.

Not that the show necessarily has to get the legal aspect of this right, but I'm pretty sure one of the things about a closed adoption is you don't get to pick where your baby goes.