You might like this:

After the sometimes-too-serious celestial epic that was Super Mario Galaxy…

Thanks for offering me the last post. Though I think we have more we could productively discuss, as it appears that we have both misunderstood certain remarks the other has made, I understand why you feel we've reached an impasse. So I won't go further with my arguments. I'll just take the opportunity to apologize for…

i think that's naive. the reasons are easily deduced. it's only if you conclude all this is true that there might be "no explicable reason".

the average person may not do it to this extreme, but that's very different than saying people have to be mentally ill to be an exception. every lie requires a certain degree of recreation, and especially in the political arena, elaborate lying is rather common place.

she would've had to lie. i'm not sure why lying is equated to a mental illness. people lie.

The primary definition of "sum up" is "to give a brief summary," which Hertzberg's piece does. If you feel the term is too conclusive, I could change my intro to, "Hendrik Hertzberg pretty well argued the improbability…" I don't think it makes much of a difference to the larger point at hand.

Hendrik Hertzberg pretty well summed up the improbability of Hill being a fraud:

Interestingly, in the shooting script, Bill doesn't crack up. He just watches TV blankly.

Uh, that's not the last shot of Frasier. That's not even the last scene. That's not even the last scene with dialogue.

The Venture Bros. Always gets me excited for another episode.

I dunno. I didn't see anything in the episode to suggest that reading. Dev may feel selfishly upset about losing the role, but that emotion is hardly emphasized, whereas we're subjected to plenty of scenes reminding us how sensitive and progressive he is – and showing us how much women love him for it. But perhaps…

I wrote something earlier about that episode of Master of None, and I'd like to repost it here, because I feel this show doesn't get enough criticism for what it does poorly.

I can't rank them fully, but I think I can break them into tiers:

Watching Master of None, I was reminded of a line from a much better show, The Comeback:

It was too mediocre to be terrible. Kind of pathetically aspirational and juvenile in a way that made it pitiable, but not hateable. The heaps of praise that it gets are a little bit maddening, though.

I guess I just didn't see Josh's feelings about the transition sufficiently expressed to the viewer overtly or subtextually.

Where I get tripped up on that explanation – that Josh's behavior this season has all been a reaction to Maura's transition – is that Josh's actions and attitude after the transition have been identical to his actions and attitude prior to the transition. So, at least to me, it doesn't read as a meaningul dramatic…

But to my eyes, Josh's behavior that you attribute to his father's transition is identical to his behavior before the transition. So again, I don't find Buzz's conclusion regarding Josh's issues particularly sagacious.

Reading the scene as Buzz's conclusion, rather than the show's conclusion, does make it go down easier for me. But given how Buzz has been portrayed, I felt that we were supposed to see it as an excellent idea.