LoneHaranguer

I don't think it would have been proper for her to have done that.

Sexuality isn't that absolute.

There are, but they only cover matters of fact, not opinion. So, she can't say she's used WW if she hasn't, but is free to rave about it however much she wants. I see Oprah's role in WW as akin to Warren Buffet, who's well known for buying into companies with the understanding that he'll help them become more profitable. Warren does it offering business advice. Oprah is a celebrity who's seen as having above-average influence.

Is the outdoors the point, or being bold enough to go set up camp on somebody's land without permission? What was the intent of their drive? They seemed ill-prepared for camping, but if they were on a shopping trip, why did they have sleeping bags?

He could be recording it.

What makes you think any celebrity needs to believe in a product to endorse it? They're getting a paycheck, and if they do a good job, they'll be invited back for more ads and more paychecks.

Reminded me of the old footage of police chasing OJ Simpson in his white Ford Bronco, trying to talk him into stopping.

What difference does it make if they're paying a random celebrity to be in an ad or one that has some other financial connection also? They're not mentioning her stake because it has nothing to do with the pitch they're making.

That's before they were born.

Why is that shady? It's pretty normal for top execs to earn money working for their company while owning a big piece of it. In terms of ones who've appeared on TV, well known examples include Hugh Hefner, Lee Iacocca, Col Sanders, Dave Thomas and his daughter, Wendy. There was also a fellow who had an ad saying he liked a shaver so much, he bought the company (and put himself in the ads).

They may have changed the casting process to try to avoid a repeat of Rachel of two years ago. The show took a beating for her showing up at the finale so underweight, and a recurrence could get the show axed.

There is a type of pill you use like that, so she may have just been confused about terminology.

Maybe the pants were a last-minute grab from the souvenir shop and some orange ones the best they could do to fit her.

Probably not since she left Nebraska (in her teens).

Are you sure about that? Companies are always fooling around with how to make their food products and coming up with name variations to tip off customers that there's a difference.

The hostility showed when he called her "lady". She may not have liked being called "Mam", but she was there with her husband and the host knew that, so "Miss" wasn't appropriate. In a classy restaurant, what else was there besides "Mrs Hofstadter", which the host was likely to avoid rather than risk mispronouncing it?

They said he was hiding in the crawlspace. Presumably he was using the ventilation system to hear what was going on in the house, but the camera shots made it seem like he was in the ducts, so there may have been a script change.

With modern methods, not unless there's some scarring or other issue interfering with a routine reversal. Until this episode, Penny was slightly younger than Kaley - same year of birth, Kaley on November 30, and Penny on December 2nd. They just added a year to Penny's age, making her just two days short of a year older than Kaley.

Just wait until she gets her first unasked-for senior discount. The minimum age for some is only 50, but if you don't know that it can really throw you when you're only in your 40's. Not if he had a reversible vasectomy. He could turn the valve back on without her knowing.

Why did they revise Penny's age up by a year? Originally, she was 21 when she met Leonard, meaning that she would have just turned 30, fitting in well with the "getting old" plot. Saying that she was 22 when she met Leonard means that she's had 14 months to get accustomed to no longer being a 20-somehting. (It also means that Kaley is now playing a character a year older than herself, which is unusual)

That battle's been lost. There isn't a single express register in my area that doesn't say "__ items or less".

It makes more sense when you consider how it'd be accessorized, but the company doesn't make adult "toys" and can't get that explicit in a TV ad.

Or, that rocker chicks hook up with more than their fair share of dudes that aren't good father material.

Their ad agency must have noticed how many food commercials look like the actors can't wait to spit out the product after just nibbling at it.

An obvious play on Mr. T's character that I noticed was used an exceptional number of times. Either the writer is a fan or was so proud of the phrase that he didn't want any viewers to miss it.