It clearly hit it's prime as a show somewhere between the 14th and 15th times they did a "Peter loses his power" story, at the same time that they very wisely refused to turn Parkman evil or kill him. Some great, bold choices that picked the show up and gave it a fresh face that fans were clamoring for.

Crivens!

NAC MAC FEEGLE!

Sadly, it's not a question of your no-doubt-able dictation. It's the politicians who deserve damnation for the excessive duration of this public oration. They would have us believe it's all a question of inflation and illegal migration, while trying to disguise that they're simply doing the will of corporations. I can…

I'll never understand it, but I don't have the perspicacity to debate those politicians. Perhaps I'm not suited for contemplation nor criticization of the politicization of cessation of cetacean citation considerations.

While I hope it will come when we're all sick of political stagnation, it'll probably have more to do with with the Department of Sanitation needing to undertake a cetacean detonation. I assure you, there will be no celebration, just an uncomfortable amount of commiseration and an excess of libations.

Indeed. When will the calling for a cessation of cetacean citations reach satiation?

I was once stunt-doubling the lead actor in a certain kidult fantasy series. The actor was clean-shaven so I had to shave off my mustache and goatee beard.

Yeah, but there are probably a disproportionate number of politicians out there who are, as we speak, calling for a cessation of cetacean citations…

If it happened in US waters, and in a populated area, there's a pretty hefty fine for approaching or harassing marine mammals. So, at the very least, you're looking at a cetacean citation.

Well, okay, but then you're judging their praxis by applying an overly narrow expectation that every argument proceed by trying to falsify itself. That's appropriate to the scientific method, perhaps, but not to humanist inquiry. In criticism like this, others test the argument and as necessary try to falsify it.

There's no requirement in criticism for approaching a subject from every angle. It implies close study and elaboration of a particular subject, often in accord with a particular praxis for conducting such a critique. She is applying a feminist critique to the trope of the damsel in distress. Obviously thinking about…

I would disagree on the GO OUT AND DO IT argument, and I'll tell you why:

I'm down with you on the first two paragraphs, but I have to disagree with the inference.

There are a million places you can voice your opposing opinion. Like right here for example!!

That's not true. You can make almost any argument in a civil manner. If the criticism is based on her points instead of on her personally, then all you have to do is refrain from using fallacies, insults or attacks. Just because thousands of people fail to exercise even a modicum of civility or respect when addressing…

Oh, Gunn definitely counts. Angel is as much a Whedon series as Buffy, Dollhouse, Firefly, etc. He does not write that many episodes. He created these series, but many people put their creative input into it. Regardless of a show's creator, any TV series is always a hugely collaborative effort...

Listen to his episode of the Nerdist. He was very much involved with Angel, even while doing Firefly and Buffy S7.

Created the character, joint created the show, was the showrunner, created and defined the major characters and arcs and generally oversaw the whole thing as well as writing / directing many of the best episodes.