Again, to each his/her own etc. but I just don't understand these sentiments. "Annoying"? Not "interesting"? It's a story about New York in the 1960s. Of course there are people like Betty and Ginsberg, and the show is portraying them and chronicling them brilliantly, at John Cheever (near F. Scott Fitzgerald) levels…

I just don't understand this sentiment (from various posters). Even if you don't like Megan (or don't like Jessica Paré), how can you deny how crucial the "Megan" story is to Mad Men, whether you view it primarily as a show about Don Draper, a show about an ad agency, or a show about the 1960s? She's practically the…

These are the neanderthal days of advertising before the prevalence of market research, demographics, Nielsen's etc. The closest they've got to any of that is Dr. Faye Miller's ridiculous "studies."

Come on…this is a guy who complains when asked to sign documents rather than just initialing them because "it's so much more work."

There's no relationship between "Wacky Packages" and Mad magazine. It's a similar style of visual satire (with puns, etc.) but they are/were discrete entities.

If seasons 3 and 4 "left you cold," you should just forget it.

That whole "Gretchen Mol" thing can be traced to a single, awful Vanity Fair cover error. (I read about it somewhere.)

What's the pun?

Reinforcing that Duck can't do anything right (including "having a name").

He's an awful person, but a profoundly funny and engaging fictional character. Of course he blithely tells Peggy that "It's every man for himself" when he owes her something, when he's repeatedly shown to wrangle every conceivable argument when he feels that someone owes something to him.

I think the point was more that Don and Megan were on their way to becoming the Nick and Nora of advertising and Megan took that away from him (and from the firm).

As long as everyone's venting their ongoing frustrations, can I just say that the whole "Megan=bad/Joan=good" concept (from the standpoint of what viewers/posters find interesting or want to spend time watching) makes no sense to me? Megan is charming, and well-written, and her story is interesting, and the actress is…

Obviously you're entitled to your opinion etc. but allow me diffidently to present a counterargument. (It's Nelson Goodman's aesthetics, right? The prevalent reading needs to be the one that's most flattering to the artwork.)

The Beatles weigh pretty heavily in Mad Men, wouldn't you agree? Going all the way back to Megan helping Harry get the Shea Stadium tickets for Don (who was at the Shea Stadium concert with Sally, incredibly) all the way through to Don whistling "I Want To Hold Your Hand" two weeks ago, they've been hanging over the…

I concede the point.

I'll bet what happened is, Matthew Weiner, AMC and Apple Corps (or whoever it is) were negotiating Beatles rights. They were looking all through "Revolver" (which it had to be, given te timeframe) and it turned out that "Tomorrow Never Knows" was the cheapest. So they got that, and wrote in a line where Megan said…

Why does everyone regard the credits as Don/somebody "falling out of a window"?

Did anyone catch if that was the mono or stereo edition of Revolver?

That's only internet pedantry of the second order.

It's not Lawrence of Arabia himself who emerges from the mirage in that famous shot, it's Sheriff Ali (played by Omar Sharif).