He reminds me of Keith Richards.

Can't we give the show the benefit of the doubt, and say 1) that Eugene is not a gun enthusiast but is, instead, a very smart guy with next to no resources who had to figure out on his own how to do it; and 2) for this reason left traces that Negan saw, since Negan would have immediately focused on exactly what this…

He looks like he's the star of a reasonably-good-but-not-great movie about Lou Reed.

The question was, why did he examine the casing.

As he finished each of his big speeches, he'd look around and realize everyone had wandered away.

The Alexandrians don't read the trades.

Because the saviors had taken all the ammo away.

Good actors make it difficult to recognize inept writing because their skill is in making it seem plausible that these people would say and do these things. (Gene Hackman is a great example—when he's onscreen, even in crap, the whole scenario suddenly seems to make perfect sense.) The Walking Dead is filled with…

OK, that makes sense. Thanks.

What I don't understand is, was something preventing the Alexandria gang from just walking over to Hilltop, all this time, previous to the the end of this episode? Why have Maggie and Rick (for example) not seen each other since the premiere? Each knew where the other was. What's the big deal?

She's a suspended character, in storage for later, and the writers (and the very skilled actress) are doing what they can to make that seem plausible, but it's stretching pretty thin.

No, she was an Alexandria kid (hanging out with all those other douchebags with their comic books) and, before that, was just on the run with her idiot parents.

I, myself, have participated in that important verification process. It's hard to be sufficiently thorough, but I try very hard.

Have you considered professional comedy writing?

What's good about it (as with all good Daryl material) is that he tries to play it all cool, with just a nod—Yo, man; I'm here—but then visibly breaks down and grabs Rick. Very affecting.

Thanks for responding at length. I can't continue this tonight because I have some social obligations, but I'll gladly get back into it tomorrow.

Obviously conservatism isn’t “everything bad,” and obviously it’s a moving target like any doctrine (particularly along a big historical axis like we’re discussing). But all of this began because the nitwit above compared “political correctness” (which is a progressive value I emphatically support and believe in) with…

My definition of Fascism is based on Mussolini's definitive essay on the subject combined with Hitler's views (as presented by Ian Kershaw and by Hitler himself via the Hugh Trevor-Roper "Table-Talk" discussions, as recorded by Martin Bormann and others). I stand by my remarks concerning both the Italian and German…

I'm going to go in detail through your rebuttal and show you where you're wrong, but first I want to object in general to your presumption 1) that I'm ignorantly compressing historical archetypes into new shapes without understanding them and 2) that this is the essence of modern liberalism or progressivism.

Also: The Coen brothers' remake of True Grit is vastly superior. It's the best Western I've ever seen.