Have sociologists figured out why people like Juan_Carlo get off on being dicks about this process?

When I signed up for internet service they offered me a shitty cable package for an extra seven bucks a month. It included AMC so I said sure so I could watch Breaking Bad live. When Breaking Bad ended I called to cancel, but it turned out that while I could save the seven dollars by cancelling my TV service, I would…

There's a third option: I have a cable subscription but Comcast charges extra for HD, whereas HBO Go is HD, and costs nothing extra. So I prefer the app even though I have (legal) access to the channel.

Did they schedule it oddly or something? They certainly promoted the hell out of it

You have a really interesting point about the usage in art, and especially how that informs your sense of the general word. I come from a math background, where "prove" is used narrowly enough to be distinct even from things like "provide overwhelmingly strong evidence for". Perhaps prove-as-test is more common than I…

Yes, that seems like a reasonable conclusion.

Please tell me that's an actual thing?

I'm familiar with "prove" in the baking context — it's an interesting connection, but I remain of the impression that that sense of "prove" is generally rare today. Its persistence in the baking context being the exception that proves the rule, as they say.

Just do a shot-for-shot remake with an all black cast. You don't even have to hire new writers!

It's a weird article, but I thought the Little House idea was kind of intriguing. Probably the only one of these I'd actually watch.

My dictionary is electronic and I don't feel like getting up. Can I just get drunk instead?

Let me clarify — I am not offended and I hope I haven't offended you. I would characterize our conversation as an 'argument', yes, but I've never really understood what exactly is supposed to be so awful about arguing, so if you want to call it a 'conversation' or a 'discussion' or whatever I won't object, and I…

I suppose it's possible that's how she meant it, but I think you're stretching. Sloppy usage still seems more likely to me, but I don't see anything to be gained by arguing the point further.

This is interesting — I'm really not familiar with 'prove' in the sense you're describing, and my dictionary describes it not as a new meaning but as an old one which is now rare. Perhaps it's popped up again. At any rate, I'm not sure it's relevant here, since I think it's pretty clear from context that that's not…

In S2E1 she drunkenly begins divorce proceedings and is faced with the task of destroying her relationship in time.

I realize you're not serious but also I'd sort of like to know who the best working class Chinese guy is. Not among actors, just in general.

The original sense is that the exception to the rule proves the existence of the rule. Like how "jorts may be worn on casual fridays" implicitly establishes that jorts may not be worn on other days. The use of the phrase to mean "exception that fails to disprove the existence of a general pattern because after all it…

There's an older, stricter sense that's more literal — where an explicit exception literally proves the existence of a general rule by implying that there's something to make an exception *to*. Like when you see a sign in the airport informing you that children and the elderly don't have to remove their shoes, this…

Why, whatever do you mean? MI082Acf7W here is one of my oldest and dearest friends.

I think this argument is a little disingenuous. The context is competition for younger viewers; it matters both how young the audience is on average and how big that audience is. I don't blame Handler for choosing to emphasize a statistic that better fits her argument, but it seems a bit unreasonable to me to insist…