It's on YouTube, though. I haven't seen it since the original airing, either, but it certainly was effective.

Did someone say Arrow?

Instead, Stan reads Gadd and Talbott a note that says "Martha died on the way to her home planet."

I definitely enjoyed the show when it was new, but I don't remember it well. In fact, I had completely forgotten about Julio Mendez. I'm quite sure I really dug that character.

Accepted. Thanks.

I'm sure I'm not. Thanks for ruining that.

Gee, if you think it's a massive spoiler, why didn't you say so BEFORE you said it?

Eh, just replace with Caitlin with Detective West, and it works even better. B^)

It was a thing in old-school (pre-crisis) Superman, too. They did an issue, based on a reader suggestion, where there was a villain with hypnotic powers, and so Supes hypnotized everyone to resist all other hypnotic suggestions. They suddenly everyone wondered why Superman was dressed up as Clark, and he realized that…

Yeah. Wouldn't they at least have gotten a police escort? Yeesh.

And in any event, this is a hard show to go in and out of. There have been a lot of story developments, and you're not going to really appreciate what's happening without knowing what went down in the past. Much better to go back to where you left off (and very much worth it, IMO).

Copyright infringement is AWESOME!

Because, yeah, we NEED to have villains called Deathbolt, Deathstroke, AND Deadshot all on the same series!

Yes, especially when he had done it the RIGHT way—cuff 'em right off the bat—in the opening. Definitely a negative in an otherwise good episode, and, yes, you're right that they had the workaround right there.

Piecat!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This.

Moreover, the two-party consent things has already been established ON THE SHOW; Elsbeth taped Nelson Dubcek (the Eric Bogosian character) admitting that he was prejudiced about Peter at the ABA conference. Dubcek said that the tape was illegal because of the two-party consent law, but Elsbeth said that that would be…

I do see the difference, but I don't think that anyone said that people shouldn't be *allowed* to have such discussions without including members of that minority, only that it's a bad idea. Also, it doesn't match what you said because saying that minorities should or even must be included isn't the same as saying…

Well, then…which of her points do you disagree with? I maybe liked it a bit more than Kayla did, but for the most part, I think her points are accurate. The release of the emails didn't have nearly as much impact as it should have, the reporter character isn't very interesting, Kalinda's character has really been…

The argument isn't "If you aren't a minority, then you have nothing meaningful to say about that minority." It's :"If you're having a discussion about a minority, that minority should be included." See the difference? (And I think we can define "having a discussion" in this case as one with consequences and/or one…