That's the worst name I ever heard.

I don't feel like it holds up. I feel like the kids' reactions to his stories are often more "aw, Dad" than, "aww, Dad's dead, Bob Saget!" On the other hand, I am so desperate for them to explain why Bob Saget is the narrator that, yeah, I'd be glad to sacrifice Ted's life to that cause. Sorry, Ted.

On which note: I do not remember Louis. Should I?

I didn't notice that at all, but I'm not very visually observant. I had assumed they were re-enacting the past scenes.

I feel like Ted would be fine with it, though. It's right up his alley, vis-a-vis romanticism. It's not like Max is still around, is a threat to him, or broke the mother's heart.

There were jokes?

Yeah, I'm with you. I think it's just the compressed time frame and the issue of perspective that makes it creepy. "Man dies, his partner moves on eight to ten years later, meets someone else" is totally legitimate. "Ted's Soulmate had another boyfriend…oh, good, now he's dead and she's free for Ted!" is kind of…

Can I just say, I would love to Gump The Mother. If you know what I mean.

Yeah, that's my one complaint at this point. When she was just a fantasy figure for Ted to chase, her not having a name was one thing, but now that we're supposed to be investing in her as a character, it's time she had a name. I understand that it's awkward - they probably want the name, if any, to be a big reveal…

There were whole entire frames - like when Barney bumped into the mother's friend - where the mother wasn't even on screen! Therefore, this episode was just a bunch of crappy filler! For the mother to only be on screen for 21:57 in a 22-minute episode of "How I Met Your Mother" is unacceptable. It's the last season.…

I love that someone downvoted this. "Damn it, infant-cunnilingus jokes are all hilarious! This Dikachu critter doesn't know what he's talking about! DOWNVOTE!"

That makes some sense…but I'm not sure the best way to do it is by making the show ever more toxic. I feel like the logical move would be to just pull the plug, or, more in keeping with the spirit of your idea, to turn it into a super-bland modern-day-Simpsons, rather than just upping the manatee ante.

I don't disagree, but would like to hear more about this theory. Does he not make a lot of money from the show? Why would he want that to stop?

Just when I thought, "Okay, the random shaggy-dog story that always opens Simpsons episodes is over now, and the episode is going to start!", it ended.

Where it loses me is that it used to satirize; now it just name-drops. "Two Bad Neighbours" was jam-packed with political jokes about George Bush; in a more recent season in an episode I don't even remember, Bart randomly announced that the Simpsons could do…something?…because they're living in "Dick Cheney's…

I'm with you. Very often, Simpsons doesn't even seem to be trying to be funny.

Yeah, I agree. The show isn't *terrible* anymore—-it's just kind of there. Whereas when it was first coming off the rails, it went through a very cartoony phase - a lot of people cite panda rape and jockey elves, but for me, the absolute low point will always be the cow mooing "tomacco!" You'll no longer see animals…

I still love you, Perky D. (That's what you like to be called, right? That or John?)

Really? What was "brilliant"? I consider this to be an aggressively mediocre show relative to not just early Simpsons, but itself. "funny but the guy died" was good for a small smile, but "brilliant"? Really?

Yeah, for clarity, I don't believe in just unilaterally cutting your spouse off, any more than I believe in just going out and randomly fucking other people. Both my position and Dan's (as he expresses it this week) are far inferior to, say, trying to work your sexual incompatibilities out.