Florinaldo

Another verbal tick is "just let me stir this" as if the viewer could do anything to stop that or any other action by the cooks. So the Elegant French Desserts is the last episode of the ATK "At Home" season. Have they made any announcement as to whether CK's next season is being produced along the same principle or if they are returning to the usual formula? Sometimes it feels like they become so enamoured with their new technique or approach, that they go gaga with it. They forget that the end result of all their testing and development should be something that is easily applicable at home, by ordinary people, and does not take too much time. The ice coffee episode is a good example of them going overboard, and so is this one. Who has room in their kitchen for such a big and cumbersome gas tank, which is ugly to boot? They should have worked at adapting this coktail recipe to small appliances found in many kitchens today, like those soda machines that are so popular. I also got excellent results. I can't remember another recipe I made which specifically required bleached flour: up here, unbleached is the norm and not every grocery store carries the bleached variety. I had to visit 3 stores before finding some.

It is a vast mystery to me how some people are willing to spend great amounts of money and endure the discomfort and pain of multiple cosmetic surgeries as well as having implants inserted in their body to unnecessarily pad various portions of their anatomy, for the end result to be so completely grotesque. And then they top it off with a too-tight ill-fitting dress along with a fugly wig.

Defendant can only be described as "bugfuck crazy", and not in a good way.

They have to use mostly products made by their sponsors, which limits the diversity of looks and the number of possible concepts. Not to mention the time factor: they have to come up with designs real fast and execute them on a tight schedule, so no wonder they often choose to resort to proven templates they are familiar with.

Doesn't that happen on many of those reality shows, especially the renovation/construction ones? It's as if they want to make sure each viewer is constantly reminded of where things stand, what is the premise of the show, etc.. They may also feel the need to constantly brief the casual viewers (like me for this show) or the new ones, or perhaps they are afraid that some of the viewers dozed off and missed a few bits. That being said they have about 3/4 of an hour of TV to fill and 20 minutes of people hammering nails would not make for very compelling viewing, so talking heads (even repetitive ones) could seem to be a good replacement option.

They did so much with the garage, inside and all around outside as if they did not wish to waste a single square centimeter, that it felt like quite an extensive reno; in the end it was like a very well appointed small house. I see I am not the only one who wondered what happened to all of the stuff that was stored in the garage initially, like the bikes, toys and all those storage bins. Granted, it's probable that the family ultimately decided to chuck a good portion of it, but where were the drums – which magicaly reappeared in the end – kept in the remodeled garage? Perhaps in those closets we had a quick glimpse of but could not really gauge their capacity (only 4 narrow doors). That's the role he got an Emmy, a Golden Globe and a few other awards for.

The scariest part was that confused and uncomprehending plaintiff said in the hallterview that he ultimately passed the LSAT. Assuming his incoherent mind was correct in this instance, this means another law student on his way to potentially becoming one more incompetent lawyer, if he makes it through the program (judging from some of the specimens of attorneys who appear as litigants on these shows, the standard is not very high).

JJ's jurisdiction is in civil procedures; she does not get involved with criminal issues and is most probably precluded from trying to enforce penal provisions of the law. However, she has frequently mentioned that she hopes the local authorities have been watching a particular case which involved fraud or similar actions and she has even volunteered to send them the recording. I would not be surprised if she routinely does it anyway, whether she mentions it on air or not. She may have been hoping for a similar outcome in this case, with the insurance company realising they have been played. Of course, they may decide the amounts involved are not worth the effort. At least the defendant got the money to compensate for being screwed by his despicable aunt.

I was disappointed that although the painting took on Constantine's appearance, Crowley did not make into the real-life world. Too bad because I had never noticed before how Matt Lucas can indeed be made to look like a comic version of old AC. I suppose COVID restrictions prevented him from leaving the UK, so he was limited to purring a few seductive voice-over lines to trick dumb Astra. A missed opportunity, unfortunately. The magic formulas he was teaching her had a definite whiff of Harry Potter, with their debased Latin. Something "the Great Beast" as AC dubbed himself at times would not have appreciated.

The one used by most people in my neighbourhood bills at the start of each quarter (as do many others in this city). Customers do not mind that practice because he has proven his reliability and efficiency. The first year, the initial billing period was 2 months, which helped establish a relation of trust. He also does our snow plowing.

I do not understand the attraction of going on national TV to reveal the sordid details and consequences of your stupid life choices. Is the lure of getting half of the award kitty enough or are they simply media whores? Perhaps rentboy defendant thought he could rustle up a few more customers out of the exposure, but what excuse could the plaintiff have? Interesting info. But like you I would not want to keep (much less use) the old linen or cookware from a previous owner. It would be different for a step-ladder as you say.

Exactly. Plot expediency required that the characters, including a trained firefighter, act as negligent idiots as far as safety in their home.

"Pointless" is the perfect characterisation for most of those segments where the two judges answer viewer questions. They are being upstaged by HL as far as providing sound legal analysis and advice; as the star of the show JM should not let that happen. To be fair though, HL is more often to the point and specific than when they do their joint post-decision analysis, since they often resort to commenting on litigants rather than the issues involved in the case.

She and her husband clearly do not understand how business and capitalism work. When you purchase a service like this one, the vendor is free to use any subcontractor he wishes, as long as he ultimately provides exactly what you contracted for with him and at the required level of quality. One reason you hire such people is that they do all the leg work of finding the various components for your events, so you do not have to spend valuable time doing it yourself (especially since they usually would already have the necessary contacts). If he manages to slightly increase his profit margin in the process, it's none of your bee's wax, unless you do not receive what you paid for, which was clearly not the case here. She was both cheap and an idiot.

JM adressed the same issue but in different terms and not in as pointedly legalese language as HL when she made her decision. The upstart lawyer plaintiff has two much more seasoned attorneys contradicting her. Perhaps she should retake the bar exam (or commercial contract law is simply not her field).

There is a gap between dyslexia and the way he is written, i.e. as the village idiot; it's beyond being immature or having a learning disability. Tommy walking in on her dead husband was quite the shocker to end the episode with. Especially since he had great plans for his own restaurant. Yes, that was a cheap and much too facile script device to show the repercussions of the father's little conspiracy on their offsprings.

Poor Carlos and TK missed out on a session of make-up sex. Plus their house is now completely destroyed. Considering how Mateo pointedly mentioned there are two spare bedrooms in the Cap's house, I think they will probably be moving in there temporarily. How long before they are tempted to strangle Mateo for being such an idiot? One wonders how such a character could plausibly pass the Fire Department entrance selection process. Don't they have some standards and require a minimum trace of intelligence?

It's natural to make up our own backstories for the litigants, but this one seems highly improbable to me. That seems much more plausible in my view. The disgusting lying Mama Cass look-alike is given new life as she has now been integrated into one of the newer episodes.

In the car accident case, I was impressed by how the plaintiff has kept a pleasant and sunny attitude, even after having to deal with such lying scum as the two defendants. No trace of the hostility or bitterness we often see in these cases, where the relationship has deteriorated over the previous months or weeks. The furthest he went was saying "you see what I have been dealing with!" when they trhew the two lowlives out, but still smiling and being cheerful.

I think the dry cleaning shop owner was completely ignorant about computers and truly thought that patching up his old operating system could have been done with a snap pf the fingers. Another specimen of those deluded litigants we see on these shows who think the universe runs as they imagine it should, not as it really does.

The plaintiff who dated an employee was quite the arrogant bastard. He said he went on the workplace harassment training that is mandatory in their place of work. If he did, he did not pay much attention because his words and actions contradicted everything that is taught in such workshops. Strating with "never establish an intimate relationship with someone you are supervising", a basic principle. Or perhaps he followed exactly what was said during that course, in which case the company should immediately fire the incompetent provider. Unless the company shares the sentiments he expressed. HR procedures seem rather lax in that business. He should never have been allowed to oversee an investigation, carried out by his assistant, on actions targeting him and involving someone he used to date. The decision to fire her should not have been his. He was described as an "operations associate", which does not tell us much as to his exact position (and power) in the company. He tried to look cute and demure by replying "a gentleman never discusses his age", but I think that was mostly to avoid exposing the fact he was nearly twice her age. His statement "I don't fire people, they fire themselves" sounds like one of those empty and useless bromides too many professional motivators deliver during training sessions for managers. I credit the judges with resisting the very natural urge to slap the irritating permanent smile off his face.

Or it may be her efficient way to control and manipulate everyone in the family, knowing exactly what buttons to quietly push in her reserved way.

Did the defendants present any real defence? I remember them just just stating that they offered her to opportunity to come by and pick up replacement horses, despite their contract saying they had to deliver the animals. Was it clearly established that the two horses she had chosen ran away and were definitely lost? Why was the wife constantly watching (glaring at?) her husband and whispering to him; I am surprised JJ did not call her on that.

I do not mind the anecdotes when they come up in the course of a legal discussion of the case we have just watched. But when they become the focus of a distinct segment, very celeb-TV style, that it where they lose me.

I agree she should not have gotten any money back. But we know how JJ is allergic to people other than herself making money so she begrudges any single penny she can to the landlord. As for the plaintiff I always marvel (and not in a good way) at people who seem to think that spending time in jail and having warrants against you is a normal and expecte circumstance in everyone's life (including her spouse). Plaintiff was rather haughty while claiming she was due something, just because, despite the contract's provisions. Her witness might have been trying to shift the blame for the deficient pre-sale evaluation of the horse.