Yes, that was my feeling exactly. Plus, the really excellent comic that this show is clearly spiritually drawn from was all about..coming to terms with mental illness, learning to live with it. So it feels cheap to remove that.

I enjoyed the first season, but I was really disappointed (and from this description, will continue to be disappointed) that they’ve gone with “he was never crazy! It was his powers and/or the evil being invading his mind.” I was more invested in it when it seemed to be going towards “powers/demon *and* mental illness”

I think you can even put it back further than that; I remember coming across some first and second century slanders against the Jews by Roman writers that bore a lot of similarities to the ones we know today still.  Of course, they weren’t being particular precise and some of the references were actually to christians…

There have been many strange bedfellows in recent years. I’m still kind of baffled by the common cause that’s been struck between ultra-rightwing catholics and ultra-rightwing evangelicals. Clearly the “ultra-rightwing” part is trumping everything else, but it still just feels really weird. Even looking pass the more…

I don’t think my parish used that exact version; if I let myself sort of start reciting it, it skips right from “he suffered, died, and was buried” to “on the third day he rose again in fulfillment of the scriptures”

It’s kind of amazing to me that considering the characters. It’s the very definition of case-of-the-week type TV, to the point that avoiding anything that episodic is not only painfully forced, but very obviously so. Which is too bad, because it would do wonders for the pacing.

I just saw the trailer for this, and at least five people in the audience just said, “No.” out loud at the end. At which point the entire theater started laughing, because we’d all been thinking it.  

On top of that, ski resorts don’t generally leave the chairs hanging.

He recommends cheating all the time. Your partner isn’t into x? They don’t want an open relationship, but you do? What they don’t know won’t hurt them, it’s for the good of the relationship, etc

My sister is having the same problem with her primary partner. In some ways, the thing I hate most about my situation is that my BF is set on viewing this as a conflict between my monogamy and his sexual desires (he’s not into polyamory, and has said he couldn’t deal with me dating other people), rather than, you…

I think if the issue is “either this condition is fulfilled, or we’re done” it needs to be something you tell your partner. Like, an ultimatum sucks and can be manipulative, but they at least deserve the chance to decided whether or not they are willing to make that trade-off.

Me too. It’s fundamentally dishonest, and it exposes the partner to a lot of risk.

Some of his advice here was not terrible. Though I’m now more than ever anti-cheating, having been on the wrong side of it, so I’m disappointed the closest example is not really enough of an excuse to vent

Oh, it’s not that bad. There’s something great about the fact that unlike a lot of that type of romantic comedy, it’s not “free spirit/straight man” as it first appears. Steve Martin’s character isn’t dragged along on a madcap caper, he’s quickly an active partner in all of it.

There is something especially quotable about French Kiss. We’ve gotten a lot of mileage out of “My ass is twitching, you people are making my ass twitch.”

I never really liked Sleepless in Seattle and You’ve Got Mail as much as everyone else. My favorite 90s romantic comedy is probably French Kiss. (And Dave’s fun too. Gotta love Kevin Kline.)

Normally I would just let this pass but I am seriously mystified by this turn of conversation, so here’s to solving it:

Why did you bring up Quebec then?

But he’s not Quebecois 

Why would he speak with an English accent?