L+3 and L+7 bears no factors over a show's renewal chances.

Another explanation is that someone changed the luminol to another substance so that it would never accuse blood.

What bias? I have never commented on Scandal's quality this season here.

If I remember correctly, just this season, the reviewer gave a Scandal episode a B+ (I think it was just last week) and a C+.

I'm pretty sure that he's trying to get around to tarnish Annalise, since the actions of a member of her team (Bonnie) caused Nate to be fired. Of course, Nate doesn't know of this so he lashes out at Annalise because he thinks Bonnie was acting at her behest when it was all self-initiative from Bonnie's part.

"I am not telling the reviewer how he or she should do their job, I am just giving my opinion on the review having watched the episode."

You are entitled to a logical opinion - not bashing a show at every passing chance you get. So, just because the author of this review gave the episode an A- (when, admittedly, he has given Scandal as far as a C- often in the show's third season. I think, even in this season) he is suddenly biased? So, he is only…

So, you complain when a reviewer gives Scandal a higher score in an episode than most other sites, but when most other sites share that higher score you say they must be biased?

Hitting the Fan wasn't Juliana's submitted episode at the Emmys this year - it was the Last Call.

The Kings said that they have planned the show's history to last seven seasons. So, were it to happen, a seventh season would be the last.