iggysaurus

It seems there's some disagreement about the usage of the term "prevaricate." pre·var·i·cate prəˈverəˌkāt/ verb speak or act in an evasive way. "he seemed to prevaricate when journalists asked pointed questions" synonyms:be evasive, beat around the bush, hedge, fence, shilly-shally, dodge (the issue), sidestep (the issue), equivocate, waffle; Usage Note: The traditional meaning of prevaricate is "to speak or write evasively." In recent years, a second sense has developed, meaning "to behave in an indecisive manner; delay or procrastinate," perhaps influenced by equivocate, which primarily means "to speak evasively" but can also mean "to be indecisive." In American English, this second sense is widely considered an error, and a large majority of the Usage Panel finds it unacceptable. In 2011, 78 percent of the Panel disapproved of the "delay" sense of the word as used in the sentence He prevaricated for some two years before accepting the new design for production. This usage is more commonly encountered in British English, as in this quotation from the BBC News: As the industry prevaricated, sales collapsed.

I agree Tyler could've found a way to spin the challenge into something he could've done well at, but they definitely were really hyping the "ethnicity" angle, not just "what you ate growing up." Underneath every judge's name, it said "originally from Haiti", "originally from India," "originally from Iran," etc. They episode was VERY focused on highlighting people's country of origin. This is in keeping with the overall zeitgeist of promoting multiculturalism and diversity (which I'm not saying is a bad thing), and almost sort of plays into an "anti-elite" sentiment so prevalent today by giving the edge to those who aren't classically trained. Having said all that, even the "old white guys" could've won or gotten by if they'd faultlessly executed whatever they decided to make. You can't lose with food that just tastes good!

I'm late in watching/commenting, but ... I agree with those who said the first couple episodes were more compelling. Andrew became an almost cartoonish villain after it was revealed to the audience that he definitely did rape Laura. It seemed inconsistent with the way he acted in the first couple episodes. With Laura, he asked her out very tentatively, and backed off immediately when she wasn't sure. Then she was the one who followed up and made the date happen. They went on a normal date and he acted seemingly normal even after they were back at her place. Then a couple episodes later after the audience is in on the fact that he's a rapist, he very aggressively asks Vanessa out, then sneaks into her apartment to drug and rape her. He went from being a very subtle date rapist to being a run-of-the-mill "bad guy" rapist who sneaks into the house of an almost-random victim. Both are awful, but a different "MO." It seemed in the first few episodes that it was going to be a more subtle, complex story about consent, abuse of power, etc. but then he was just your average Super Evil Bad Guy character practically twirling his (non existent) mustache while plotting his next attack. Oh well, I still watched the whole thing ...

Really? Because I hated him right off the bat due to the stupid hipster mustache, and I wasn't surprised at all that he would be the one to go for the smirky, smug innuendo about Padma (who, as has been mentioned, totally encourages it and should stop because it's annoying and played out).

No, as far as I know, they haven't explained at all how they're deciding which model is eliminated. I was going to say, maybe they just randomly pick from the entire pool of models each week to assign to the remaining designers ... but there hasn't been one week that Liris hasn't been one of the models. Same with the girl (I'm blanking on her name) who spoke Japanese with Kentaro. I'm thinking maybe a small group of them (including Liris) have a contract that guarantees they will be on the show each week until the end, regardless of which designers go home. Do you think the final 3 designers who show at fashion week will be required to use the models from the season, meaning they're required to design for plus size even though the runway show is supposed to portray their own vision, and plus size may not be their strength?

You mean you've never heard the phrase "Holy cannoli!"? :)

Though I doubt everything is as a reply to this particular comment, and a lot is just to address his insecurity, which was part of the episode and maybe some peoples own insecurity in not wanting to offend, but feeling they'd offend either way by saying or not saying something or asking. It's difficult to navigate at times. Yeah, that post that you quoted had me scratching my head because it's like ... the person is saying "it's not racist to reference Africa" and yet they seem to be bashing Kentaro for it all the same. Kentaro, you don't get a pass for ... saying something NOT racist?

I couldn't believe how overblown Heidi's introduction of that 14-year-old was. I'm pretty sure she said she was a dancer, actress, model, fashion designer AND *best selling author*. It's so annoying how someone can get that many careers out of being on a reality show. I can believe she may be a talented dancer, which was the focus of the show she was originally on, but the fact that this somehow qualifies her to be all these other things at the age of 14 is just eye roll worthy. As long as someone is pretty and catches the attention of the millennial (and younger) Instagram/Youtube set, they automatically get handed all these opportunities that they barely deserve. Sigh.

I had the same thought. When she was announced as the new Doctor, I was like ... "....Her?" It may be just because I've not seen her in any roles besides Beth, but I never thought she was anything special. I don't hate her or the character, but she's forgettable to me (the actress and the character both). Now, if Olivia Colman was the new Doctor, I would be excited! She is spectacular. This 1000%. Ooh, I love Ashley Jensen! She's delightful. I will have to watch that. I think it's on Acorn.

I just wanted to weigh in and agree with those who don't like the podcasts -- not because of a problem with any particular content, but because like the poster I quoted above, I read the forums and recaps during breaks at work and I can't listen to or watch things easily in that setting. But even at home, I'd prefer a written recap. I just don't care for podcasts as a format for show recaps. I like reading. Is reading obsolete? Are we switching everything over to podcasts and videos because millennials prefer audiovisual content and find reading to be boring?

I think they said Gypsy had a "secret" FB account, which was presumably where she was posting all those pics and comments about Nick being her soul mate, but yeah, does that mean she had no friends on that account besides Nick, or maybe just online friends who knew nothing about her real life?

I want to like this, but ... Nobody talks like these teenagers. I can't stand that oh so witty, self aware banter that these characters are constantly spouting. I'll try to stick with it but it might be hard to get past the precocious dialogue.

Ha! I'm so glad everyone hated Sophia as much as I did. She was smug and insufferable. The "I'm not here to make friends" line on any reality show is beyond cliche, not to mention obnoxious. And wanting someone to forget an ingredient so you can win is the epitome of poor sportsmanship. Real winners win on their own merits. So glad Heather won, she deserved it.

Thank you - this has been my impression all along and I am surprised so many are seeing Jane's rape as a "whodunit." I think this show is mainly a character study of these three women (and the secondary characters). It's structured around the actual "whodunit" of the murder (where we still don't know who the victim is, nevermind whodunit), but that's more a narrative device than the "point" of the story, IMO. The meat of the story is the characters' complicated lives in general. Celeste's primary story is that she's in an abusive relationship. Madeline's is her stale marriage/affair/parenting issues (take your pick), and Jane's is her trauma from being raped and raising the child that resulted from that rape in a new and unfamiliar setting. I don't think there has to be a big reveal that the stories intersect in such an obvious, soap-opera way like Celeste's husband turning out to be Jane's rapist from the past. But obviously mileage varies.

I was born in Carmel and my family lived in the Monterey area on and off through the 60s-90s. I used to go visit there all the time over the years. Pacific Grove/Monterey are connected ... one runs into the other. In the screen shot above, there is a paved bike/walking trail that runs along what you see in the top right of the picture ... if you start there near Lovers Point and keep walking (about a mile?) you'll end up in Monterey, right by Cannery Row and the Aquarium etc. This show is making me miss Monterey! If only the prices were still like in the 60s when my parents rented a house in PG for $65/month ...

Do we have any good reason to assume that whoever raped Jane is another one of the main male characters? Did that incident even take place in Monterey? I keep seeing people speculating about who it will turn out to be, but my initial assumption was that this was a totally separate incident that happened to Jane in the past before she moved to Monterey, and that its purpose in storyline is just to give Jane a back story and illustrate the difficulty she has with raising Ziggy alone and fitting into the new town. In real life it would be very unlikely that she would just happen to become friends with the wife of the man who raped her 6 years ago when she was living somewhere else. I realize that unrealistic twists happen all the time in TV shows but it doesn't necessarily mean this show will handle it that way. Maybe Jane's rapist really is just some random guy, not an important member of the present-day cast. Seems kind of like it would be a cheap contrivance to have it be like "....and by sheer coincidence, it turns out that the mysterious man who raped Jane all those years ago is the same man who is currently the abusive husband of one of Jane's friends in her new town!" or whatever. I could totally be wrong though. I'm reading the book so maybe I'll find out soon.

The Mensa guy was kind of annoying, but I don't blame him for not being able to answer "what's the capital of Mongolia" on the spot. Most people blank on that kind of thing even if they do know it, and more to the point, intelligence is not the same as "knowing lots of facts." Someone who knows the capital of Mongolia isn't necessarily of high intellect, and vice versa. (But, I also know that Ted was just throwing out that "challenge" good naturedly, not trying to dis him.) As with everything annoying on this show, I mostly blame the producers and the overall structure of the show they've established. Every contestant has to have a "thing" - usually a sob story, but in the absence of that, some sort of interesting personal fact that's supposed to distinguish them for the audience. And whatever that thing is (I'm in Mensa even though I'm a big burly guy who doesn't fit the stereotype/I'm gay and my mother doesn't accept it/I'm a first generation immigrant/I suffer from lack of confidence in myself/etc), it is required to be worked into their answer for all the major talking head moments - intro, the "why are you here" part during judging, and finally the sum-up when they give their reaction to being choppped. It's a formula and I don't think any contestant really has control over it, aside from their initial decision to reveal whatever personal info they reveal.

Are there going to be additional episode threads for Season 2? I've finished the whole thing and was hoping to see some discussion about individual eps...

Does anyone know if Starz plans to release just one episode per week after the "real" premiere, or will they put them all up at once? I'm not familiar with how Starz normally does things. I'm hoping for an all-at-once because I like to binge this kind of show!

Brioche is still a very popular choice for sandwiches in Portland, where I live! It's very common to see a burger on a menu described as being "on a brioche bun." It's not gross to me - it doesn't taste sweet or anything. It's just a slightly eggy, more flakey version of any other type of roll you'd put a burger or sandwich on.

How were they supposed to get inspired by Austin when they weren't given any time to spend there? They didn't even send them out for a tour around the city or out to a music club or anything that would give them a feel for the city if they hadn't been there before. They just sent them straight from the Best Western (which is generic and the same in every city) to the farm supply store to get their materials. Was the farm supply store itself supposed to inspire them on behalf of the city of Austin (which apparently it's not even located in)? Or were they supposed to just be inspired by the "idea" of Austin that most people have from its reputation as a weird, liberal, college city? The concept of using Austin as inspiration would've been OK but the execution made no sense. At least when they have a challenge that's supposed to be inspired by NYC, they usually give them a helicopter ride over the city or send them out to research/experience a particular area or museum before deciding on their specific inspiration. I'm positive Erin is going to win the season. It may not be pre-determined, exactly, but she is totally the kind of winner they want. They wouldn't want Laurence to win (even if she makes the best collection) because she doesn't drink the PR koolaid enough. And Rik and Roberi are fine but not as perfect a "PR poster child" as Erin would be. Erin is the exact mix of hipster/quirky/smug that they always seem to want to reward. And UGH, I so hate her personal dress sense. Those little high-waisted short-shorts she wears every single week are so unflattering and flat out ugly.

Thank you for the clarifications!

My PBS station is now airing S2, apparently ... I guess a repeat of when they aired it before? I'm so confused about UK vs US seasons. It's the season that has Ruby and Kimberly (the only 2 whose names I can remember after only seeing one episode so far). It seems a little weird, almost like the narration is dubbed in to make it more understandable by American viewers, but I might be imagining that. They keep showing clips of the bakers' home lives which I don't remember them doing until later in the season on previous seasons I've seen. Edit: I guess this is actually season 5? But PBS calls it S2?

I found the part about Churchill and the painting to be the most interesting part of the episode. The stuff with Porchey and the horses was more tedious to me. The portrait thing intrigued me enough to look it up to find out the real life details. Apparently, it wasn't burned almost immediately like they showed at the end of the episode, but was kept in a cellar for many years until after his death and then Clementine quietly had it disposed of. I know he's a cranky old man but I had sympathy for him when he was forced to face his own aging body and mortality via the painting. When Sutherland was yelling at him that if he sees decay, it's because there is decay, etc., I felt so bad for ol' Winston. Most of us can relate in some way to realizing that the way we see ourselves isn't always what others see - like when you see a picture of yourself and suddenly realize how old or overweight you're getting, and you were just mentally blocking it out or in denial until that moment. Also, I think the stuff with Churchill is important and not just something to skip over, because although this is ostensibly a series about the Queen, it's really about everything that was going on in the monarchy and government at the time, and just using the Queen as a central device to tell that larger story. Churchill is a big part of that era in Britain.

I agree with orza. I think he felt both pity and contempt for the other inmate and thought they'd both be better off dead. I wouldn't mind another season of this show with Stella investigating a different case. I know some find her (or Gillian Anderson's acting) to be one-note and annoying, but I find her compelling and would gladly watch her investigating another killer.