Now that you reminded me of this line – and now that I'm seeing it in all it's printed glory – I'm actually considering buying the book.

You mean days.

On second thought, I might've seen the girl's Twitter handle here first, from you (and then later on Reddit). Apologies.

I immediately came here post-episode to comment "Fruit in the Room," imagining of the upvotes it would get. Alas, John Teti has an equally fine eye for detail.

Don't worry, the internet shares your cynicism. In researching the truthfulness behind "ELAIFF" (alongside "Claw of Shame," the other best episode so far), redditors discovered the Twitter handles of the people on the show proclaiming genuine joy at [the situation they thought they were in]. Purposefully vague there…

Super professional of him.

Ah yes, one example of an on-set mishap involving a *train* is a clear indication these ruels are "rarely" followed. I see who I'm debating here.

You pointed out the production company affording the lawsuit. I'm saying they would not have taped the scene of people sliding around in the back of the truck if Viacom lawyers thought it opened them to possible damages in the event of injury.

ELAIFF was a one-concept episode which rivaled Claw of Shame since it kept building. But I'm worried that, considering those were the best two episodes (partly on their ambition, partly on their execution), I'm setting my expectations for Dumb Starbucks too high.

It's actually helped me savor awkward interactions (for their inherent, Nathan-like comedy) that I used to loathe.

Comedy Central, being owned by Viacom, has a rather robust in-house legal department. Everything is run by them beforehand, even if the show is edited to make it seem like that's not the case.

Yes! It's finally blowing up — which it deserves — but I'm worried about it blowing up too much. Which, I suppose, is selfish and unfair as Nathan deserves all the success he's due.

Yes. Indeed many reviewers have written at length at how Nathan's comedy isn't "gotcha!" or humiliating on the part of his subjects as it is with, say, Borat. The joke is usually on Nathan. So much of the show's comedy relies on him getting rejected… in a multitude of ways.

I see what you're saying, and I agree with the previous poster (and yourself): minority business-owners make up a large block of Nathan's subjects because of both 1) statistics/demographics of small business ownership in LA (their point), and 2) they're probably less skeptical of a guy with cameras offering to help…

The mattress dragon had me in stitches. But you're right, tonight's episode suffered because the bar's been set so high. Remove "Claw of Shame," The Hunk," and "ELAIFF," and this is not only an A episode, it's something that still stands out among current comedy offerings on TV.

I haven't guffawed that loudly (whilst sober!) in awhile.

Such an under-heralded (to my knowledge), recurring device.

Nathan for you always makes me (genuinely) laugh out loud, but I haven't laughed louder/harder than when I saw them using the Chinese Dragon as cover to smuggle the mattress out.