txhorns79

You aren't alone. The way the actors played it, it very much felt like Dash and Killian were going to kiss. It's like Freya and Ingrid's sexual chemistry last week with their brother. I'm just curious how old Ingrid and Freya are supposed to be. Both look late 20s/early 30s, so it feels like Ingrid is 5 to 10 years late with her whole "I need to move out of the house storyline."

Is the object an item of clothing?

I think the issue was more that the show would sometimes throw big financial problems at Lorelai, then never mention them again or do anything to suggest Lorelai had learned anything from the issue. I don't think there was any suggestion that the show didn't make clear that Lorelai had financial struggles over the years. Heck, they showed us that she lived in a freaking shed for some period of time.

I don't think it will ever make sense. Sometimes I felt like things like Lorelai's spending and the Gilmore wealth changed to satisfy the plot. I mean, with the termite situation, Lorelai appeared to be living on the edge in terms of her finances, but you'd never know it from Lorelai and Rory's ability to regularly eat out every day, and no mention of that loan ever again. Then you have Lorelai apparently having money so tight that she was *gasp* buying groceries and cutting down on her cable channels, right before Luke bailed out the Dragonfly with his secret hermit tens of thousands of dollars, but again, you never hear of Lorelai having money issues after that.

I was trying to figure out why Ingrid would be organizing what appears to be someone's valuable collection of items on a table in the public library. I mean, I was under the impression she was working as a curator for a university of some sort, which presumably would have a dedicated space, rather than just leaving Ingrid to her own devices. Yeah, Frederick has all kinds of inappropriate sexual chemistry with his sister (and his aunt!). There were several points where I felt like they were going to go all Flowers in the Attic on us and various twincest makeout sessions would ensue.

Yeah, my thought was: "How surprising that a guy you knew was willing to deceive his wife turned out to be a liar!" In fairness, Ty has been shown to be pretty stupid when it comes to crime. He returns to crime scenes, tries to stage robberies involving dozens of people and doesn't put on his ski mask until he's right in front of the church leaving him at risk for being recognized. Contrivance? My only guess is someone on the writing staff finds Rosie's citizenship issues to be fascinating because they keep setting up situations where it becomes a plot point.

Marisol went to the police prior to going to the Powell's. They did not initially believe her or her evidence, and suggested she was making it up due to her troubled marriage. She then confronted Nick and convinced him to confess to the Powells. After Nick confesses, Marisol says they are going to the police, who I guess will believe Nick's confession. It appears only a two or so days passes between Spence proposing at the beginning of this episode and the wedding. Mr. Kenneth and his family was resolved last week. The nephew was going to jail and Mr. Kenneth's family otherwise reconciled. I think it was said that the nephew had ruined Rosie's chance for an immigration hearing.

Is it a piece of clothing?

I think they had said he had moved back east or something like that. Essentially he had left town after he was proven innocent. I just wanted to scream: "You are marrying a guy right out of rehab with no job, no money and who is clearly living a lifestyle he can't afford." Rosie needs much better friends. Spence was doing everything except wearing a t-shirt that said "You should not marry me." I feel like Rosie could have told them that she found a dead body under Spence's bed and they would have told her that it wasn't enough to put off the wedding. One thing I thought was odd was how personally Marisol seemed to take Nick's cover up. She seemed overly invested in an incident that she was only marginally involved in. I thought her greeting him with a slap across the face was way over the top, and it's something of a double standard, i.e. if Nick had been furious with Marisol and punched her in the face, I think that would be called abusive.

Is the object at Yale?

Is this object located in the Crapshack?

Lulu, you are too much! And you are exactly right. Great job! For a reference, Lorelai refers to Emily as Pol Pot in the magazine interview she gives concerning the Dragonfly. In Blame Booze and Melville, Emily gets a chance to read the article and confronts Lorelai. Mind you, I'm trying to imagine why the readership of a travel magazine is going to be all that interested in an article reviewing an inn where a good portion of the article is apparently dedicated to the the inn owner trashing her mother. Even as gossip, it would only seem good if you knew Lorelai and Emily.

1. No. This political figure was not seen in person or on a television screen within an episode. 2. His face is not too small for his head, i.e. this is not George W. Bush. 3. Yes. Lorelai does mention this person. 4. No. This person is not Italian. Sorry Mussolini! 5. No. This person is not Russian. Sorry Stalin! Lenin! Trotsky! 6. Yes. This person is male. 7. No. This person is not Ari Fleischer. 8. Yes. This person is mentioned during a Friday night dinner scene (I don't believe it was during the actual dinner.) 9. No. This person is not an American politician. 10. If the "plaid years" mean the seasons when Rory attended Chilton, then no, this person was mentioned during the Yale years. If any kind of hint is allowed, let me know and I'll give you one.

1. No. This political figure was not seen in person or on a television screen within an episode. 2. His face is not too small for his head, i.e. this is not George W. Bush. 3. Yes. Lorelai does mention this person. 4. No. This person is not Italian. Sorry Mussolini! 5. No. This person is not Russian. Sorry Stalin! Lenin! Trotsky! 6. Yes. This person is male. 7. No. This person is not Ari Fleischer. 8. Yes. This person is mentioned during a Friday night dinner scene (I don't believe it was during the actual dinner.) 9. No. This person is not an American politician.

1. No. This political figure was not seen in person or on a television screen within an episode. 2. His face is not too small for his head, i.e. this is not George W. Bush. 3. Yes. Lorelai does mention this person. 4. No. This person is not Italian. Sorry Mussolini! 5. No. This person is not Russian. Sorry Stalin! Lenin! Trotsky! 6. Yes. This person is male. 7. No. This person is not Ari Fleischer. 8. Yes. This person is mentioned during a Friday night dinner scene (I don't believe it was during the actual dinner.)

1. No. This political figure was not seen in person or on a television screen within an episode. 2. His face is not too small for his head, i.e. this is not George W. Bush. 3. Yes. Lorelai does mention this person. 4. No. This person is not Italian. Sorry Mussolini! 5. No. This person is not Russian. Sorry Stalin! Lenin! Trotsky! 6. Yes. This person is male. 7. No. This person is not Ari Fleischer.

1. No. This political figure was not seen in person or on a television screen within an episode. 2. His face is not too small for his head, i.e. this is not George W. Bush. 3. Yes. Lorelai does mention this person. 4. No. This person is not Italian. Sorry Mussolini! 5. No. This person is not Russian. Sorry Stalin! Lenin! Trotsky! 6. Yes. This person is male.

1. No. This political figure was not seen in person or on a television screen within an episode. 2. His face is not too small for his head, i.e. this is not George W. Bush. 3. Yes. Lorelai does mention this person. 4. No. This person is not Italian. Sorry Mussolini! 5. No. This person is not Russian. Sorry Stalin! Lenin! Trotsky!

1. No. This political figure was not seen in person or on a television screen within an episode. 2. His face is not too small for his head, i.e. this is not George W. Bush. 3. Yes. Lorelai does mention this person.

1. No. This political figure was not seen in person or on a television screen within an episode. 2. His face is not too small for his head, i.e. this is not George W. Bush.

All right, I'm thinking of a controversial political figure. (I've never played, but judging from the rules and how others have started, this appears to be enough info to start. If you need more to start, just let me know.)

It's a lighter! Am I right? Do I get start a new question?

I don't think it really has anything to do with those things. Obviously, the Huntzbergers appeared to be much wealthier than the Gilmores. However, when you get to a certain level these relationships are rarely about a tit for tat measure of various assets against one another. It's why you still hear about con artists who try to pass themselves off as being a Rockefeller or Dupont, not because every member of those families is wealthy, but because the name itself has cachet. Emily viewed them as peers because they socialized in the same circles, attended the same events, apparently they were close enough in that Shira mentioned attending Emily and Richard's vow renewal, and things such as that. The Gilmore name was enough to open the door, even if the Gilmores' didn't have the same kind of money.

In fairness, from the termite situation, it seemed as if Lorelai simply didn't have the means to really have been able to put away anything for a potential Inn. I mean, if Luke or Emily hadn't been able to rescue Lorelai, she would never have been able to get a loan on her own to fix her home. As for the Independence, Lorelai had worked there for years in a management position. I'm guessing she knew the value of the place, which seemed much larger than the Dragonfly, and appeared to be well established with a good reputation, and realized even if Mia could offer a deal, it would still cost too much to be practicable. I think this basically is right. Lorelai really reacted badly to things she viewed as being within her parents' "world." I thought she viewed Chilton as a necessary evil, and tried to stay as far away from those people as much as she could. This probably got stronger for Lorelai as Emily made clear she was going to be very involved in Chilton and was on personal terms with the headmaster.

I'm not sure I follow this. That's a Rhode Island Supreme Court case. It isn't binding on a case in California. I also want to say that the court in that case did allow some of the evidence in from the search, but excluded some due to problems in the chain of custody and later actions by the police. My understanding of the law would be that so long as Marisol wasn't acting as an agent of the police, how she finds the evidence is more of a side issue. Also, there would probably a question of whether Nick would even have standing to challenge the search, since it would have been Opal's rights that were violated, not Nick's. Though I am in complete agreement that I don't understand why Marisol didn't just walk away once it became clear that Nick wouldn't be honest with her. It's like she's needlessly putting herself into a dangerous situation for no real reason. Yes, a person died (or at least that is what has been suggested), but Marisol's connection to all this is pretty weak.