Ailianna

I like both Rachel Harris and Maureen, but Maureen is soooo slow!! She seems nice and smart but she's just so slow. FJ was an instaget for me too. Before I find usted the clue. But I've read historical contemporary accounts of both sets of trials. Pretty interesting.

If you've got much medical history though, the fact one thing is in there doesn't mean it's readily available for the staff to quickly locate. My doctor and I were trying to find something specific about a prior surgery, and even knowing the date, we couldn't find it because the chart is long and has a lot of things in it. So for routine things, I'm sure its a lot faster to just ask the patient, who probably knows the answer immediately.

I kept yelling at her to get her damn eyes back on the road, but she completely ignored me while she was ignoring safety and common sense.

A bit late, but on Monday I was surprised there was no correction to Clay's answer in the second letter y category. He said "wyrm" ( granted, he might have mentally spelled it differently but you can't tell when spoken) and that's another term for dragon or wyvern. I said wyvern instantly, but I think there's an argument for wyrm, even within the strictures of heraldic language. Judges?

I am in no way saying there are no wrongful convictions or bad actors in the criminal justice system. But John's discussion was unusually biased, with no recognition of people trying to do right in the system, no recognition of the Shawshank aphorism that everyone in prison is innocent (meaning you can't just take peoples' word for it), and zero discussion of other evidence in those cases. He also paints all prosecutors as indifferent to innocence versus guilt. He missed this, on Lamar Johnson, where prosecutors asked for his conviction to be dismissed. I am starting to feel like John gets on a high horse about topics but leaves out anything that doesn't fit his chosen narrative, which makes me question all of his points. I found that with two minutes of google-ing, so it's inconceivable his staff didn't find it. Over simplifying complex problems offers no solutions.

Probably they didn't want to redo the set for one episode. If things go well, the red couch may be back next season.

3/5, 1*.

I'm still waiting for Costin Ronin to show up.

I was sure I was wrong on FJ but I really couldn't think if anything else. I was very surprised to be right!

Apparently Variety got a copy of the complaint.

The only thing that really struck me in the trailer was when Tommy says he's on that tape the same as Pam, and she's says it's not the same at all, which seemed like it might explore the differences in how they were treated.

Best wishes for Bosco, Stella, and their human!

John really should have updated his segment to note that New York repealed the loitering for purposes of prostitution law. https://www.google.com/url?q=https://decriminalizesex.work/why-decriminalization/briefing-papers/loitering-for-the-purpose-of-prostitution-lpp/&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwiW_viOtqL2AhXMJjQIHfgKAVYQFXoECAUQAg&usg=AOvVaw3E_P-wSyAiB4Ns5hDOpt3z

2/5

I think my DVR didn't record it. And I'm ok with it.

Did someone win this thing and I just couldn't pay attention well enough to notice?

That was definitely a theory in search of a proof. He starts from the presumption that she's got the job, and finds things to support it. The difference in introducing Mayim versus Ken means the show wants her--not the widely commented on here belief that Ken asked for the different "hosting" designation. The show illegally prioritizes women contestants over men to attract young women in the audience (for real?!?). Mayim "won" the stupid prime time spot (which she got from Mike Richards anyway) and that tournament was kind of embarrassing on several levels. Just a click bait drivel of opinion with no factual support. Since "real" Jeopardy! fans know it's always called "single Jeopardy!" Needless to say, his lack of facts make his conclusions useless in my opinion.

It's part of the game to not know exactly what some categories are about and have to wade in without having it fed to you. If they wanted you to know the category was about back up singers they would have just called it backup singers. That they didn't means you go in and have to figure it out. It's just one of the punny categories they like, and it's designed to encourage top down clue selection, so you aren't uncovering big money clues (or a DD) when you don't know what the category is about.

I don't think the category needed an explanation. Lots of categories have themes that you don't see until you start with the clues. Both Tweets categories tonight were that way. Try the category and find out what it's about.

3/5 with 1*

By privilege I mean exactly that. Melissa spent a lot if her personal money to buy the books and it was a sacrifice because she wanted to give the kids new books. Sarah just waltzes in, destroys the new books, says it's easy to replace them, with no understanding of the financial burden of getting them in the first place, and then says she's going to set up a grant from her personal money to buy books she (with no education background or experience with teaching young kids) thinks they should read. It's the privilege of money. She didn't care about the kids at all either. She just wanted to make her statement piece and show off how elevated and unconventional she is.

Ava often touches him, she talks about his looks constantly, asked him if he's a stripper, and is aggressively pursuing someone who not only has displayed no interest but is very vulnerable regarding his employment. He's still a substitute and has very little job protection. It's really nothing like flirting. She doesn't care if he wants the attention; she's going to keep acting as if she has a right to treat him as a sexual object. If Ava was a guy and Gregory was a woman, it wouldn't be flirting or funny, just abusive.

Honestly, about the only thing I don't really love about this show is the constant barrage of sexual harassment Gregory is exposed to. I think there's been something every episode. And they make Ava funny while doing it, so people don't realize as much. But then they cut to Gregory who definitely doesn't find it funny. I'm really hoping they do something meaningful with it; it's too pervasive otherwise.

I wish they would stop changing the covers of ebooks already in my library every time they reissue the book. Mostly they are not as good and sometimes really awful. If I wanted a movie tie-in cover I would presumably get one. If I want the original cover that I associate with the book, I'm out of luck. Sometimes I can't even recognize the book because the covers keep changing. And it's not like I'm going to go buy the book again because they changed my cover. If anything, the few people who would want new covers now don't have to buy them.

I'm pretty sure Trevor is in dark navy, not black. Sorry.