1) Totally disagree. It has resonance for anyone that has had to deal with feelings of jealousy and betrayal by close friends. Your cringing sounds more like your feelings towards Dunham/her character.

Well, she had already made much progress because she had decided to publicly talk about it (i.e. participate in the open mike), written down her feelings about them, and then bought and delivered the fruit basket just 20 minutes before telling the story. If that happened to me, I'd probably perceive overhearing a…

Yeah, I wish Hap and Leonard was as good. I just started reading the first H&L book, and I see Hap as a much funnier, likeable character (closer to Britt in Terriers) than Purefoy was.

Who can truly know for sure whether it specifically forgot to be funny, or whether, like your comments, it mistakenly thought it was being funny?

"Why would it cost half as much to film people sitting in a bar and talking?"

"it'd be cool if i could go on howard stern to tell everyone how i make no money as one of the greatest living songwriters…"

"Purefoy’s tolerable Southern accent has finally given way completely in the sixth hour…"

I laughed more at "I bet she hogged the remote."

I loved Purefoy in "Rome", but whoever had the idea to cast him in this should never be involved with casting again.

"Terriers is probably better than the Hap and Leonard show…"

Richie didn't actually pass on Springsteen. He listened to what Julie had to say about Springsteen being unhappy at Columbia, but he never gave a firm response one way or the other to the suggestion.

Richie didn't actually pass on Springsteen. He listened to what Julie had to say, but he never gave a firm response one way or the other to the suggestion.

"… he dismisses Julie’s suggestion of checking out some nobody named Bruce Springsteen."

B+? Eeesh… the writers are just rehashing the exact same character beats with Phil for the third or fourth time - just with a different antagonist. This show is getting more and more unfunny and unbearable to watch.

True - yet court reporters that reported on the trial have said that they've never seen anything like it, before or since - so it was pretty damn weird.

Cute - it sounds logical because of the usage of the verb "tainted" in both cases, but it's a completely false analogy. If you take the time to examine it, it falls apart.

I get your point (i.e. tainted evidence), and I certainly apply that logic myself to certain trials. For example, I don't know if you've seen Making a Murderer, but due to the problem of tainted evidence / police malfeasance, I would have likely voted to acquit Avery (without believing one way or the other about his…

"…and it still seems pretty absurd for Ito to allow it"

I believe the jury was out of the courtroom when he made his statement - both in the TV show and in real life. But since he made the statement 10 days before jury deliberations began, you can bet at least some of the jury members heard about it via someone else.

Really? You need even more DNA, blood, and other forensic evidence to believe beyond a reasonable doubt in someone's guilt?