WearyTraveler

I don't think anybody is speaking about Rhaegar's level of douchery. Personally, I just said that m theory is that the show wants to communicate the message that Jon is the legitimate heir to the Iron Throne and that they have chosen annulment and re-marriage instead of polygamy because of two reasons: 1) The show itself hasn't spent a lot of time explaining the polygamy of the Targs and how they were the only family allowed to do it. So, it would come a little out of the blue to now say Targs true heirs can come from a second wife. 2) If they were to explain that, there would still be people in fandom saying Jon wasn't legitimate. Again, because they don't know the hundreds of years of Westerosi history where Targs were allowed to not only marry brother to sister, but also multiple spouses, and because most of the non-readers use actual medieval history and succession rules to interpret the show. Therefore, since the show doesn't want any question as to Jon's right to the throne, they have decided to have Rhaegar annul his marriage to Elia and marry Lyanna instead. And they set up at least one annulment precedent with Sansa. My post was addressing the mechanics, not the morality of the situation. On that score, I don't think we have enough information to decide who was or wasn't a douche. For all we know, Elia could have been super happy to get a second wife in the mix. One of the comments Oberyn says in KL is that Ellaria is actually quite excited about the possibility of having a threesome with Cersei, and we know that Dorne is a lot less inhibited regarding sexual behaviour than the rest of Westeros. I mean, the heir to Dorne is having sex with a King's Guard and no one bats an eyelash. It could be that Rhaegar was stupid and selfish. It could be that Lyanna was an idiot. But it could be something else too. We just don't know enough yet, IMO. And it's one aspect that I don't think the show will even attempt to explain. We'd have to wait for the books for that (if they ever come out, that is).

He! I'd say that's actually a guarantee that she's alive. Also, didn't she use a wig last season? Or is it that we've seen spoiler pictures of Sophie wearing a wig for this season? It's all starting to get blurred in my head. I get the feeling from reading comments here and in other discussion outlets that there's a very vocal faction of fandom that really dislikes Sansa and would like to see her dead. Some of their comments are actually stretching the facts so they can speculate how and when Sansa dies. I confess, of all the Stark siblings, Sansa is my least favourite, but I don't want her to die (unless she tries to kill another of her surviving siblings without cause, or something). I don't want any other Stark to die. Period. I would actually like for all the remaining Starks, including Sansa, to get some sort of happy ending, but I'm not holding my breath. That said, I much prefer Book Sansa to Show Sansa. If I hadn't read the books, I wouldn't mind if show Sansa died. At all. Her character development has been all over the place, forward, backward, ambitious, humble, stupid, brave, cowardly. I just really don't see a good arc so far. But, since I know Book Sansa, I'm hoping all this back and forth and awful characterization on the show will eventually bring us to an end game Sansa that will be more aligned with her book counterpart (and I'm hoping her book counterpart ends up well).

She did? Sorry, I couldn't watch the panel. Can you tell me what she said?

Well, I know he voluntarily stepped away from writing for the show to finish the next book, but since he seems to love this baby so much (i.e. refusing to even consider hiring a shadow writer to help him finish) I thought maybe he would want to participate in the finale. After all, the major strokes of his planned resolution will be there, and many people might choose not to read the books afterward, I'd have thought he'd want to have a say in how that is done on TV.

Strange that Martin isn't co-writing the finale

But don't you think that's because Jack raised them to follow their dreams and reach for the stars and all that jazz? I mean, I get the feeling we are supposed to believe that Jack sacrificed his personal fulfillment so his children wouldn't have to do the same thing.

I think in the books we'll discover that R married L, but didn't divorce Elia. As we know, the Targaryens were allowed to have more than one spouse, this would off course mean that Jon is the legitimate heir to the throne. I'm going to guess that the show went with the separation story because they haven't really explained the polygamy thing with the Targs, and maybe they are thinking that fans who haven't read the books will cry foul because they are not as immersed in the Westerosi history as us bookwalkers are. Also, they may not want there to be any doubts (in the fans heads) as to Jon's legitimacy, which could arise if R were to marry L in the show while still married to E.

I've worked in plenty of offices, and since I'm a consultant, I've also had the chance to see how tons of offices in a variety of industries handle funerals and birthdays. It differs widely. I'm sure software developers don't think IBM and Google are the same when it comes to employee culture. I don't think I would be surprised by the office just sending a perfunctory detail, to fulfill their obligation in the social contract we tacitly enter when we interact with other people, but I do think that if I had a choice, I might go to a company with a culture that I'd find more to my liking. The thing with the pears is that the way these things go is that the boss will tell the secretary to get something for the person, usually there is a policy in place, the expense has to be approved, and a good secretary will ask the boss what his/her preferred option is within the policy. So, the secretary could ask "do you want to send flowers or a basket of fruit?". The point is, everyone, including the boss is aware of the policy, and they know what has been sent in the past. So, Randall's boss could have said something to the secretary before asking for something to be sent. It would have been as simple as: "if we are sending fruit, make sure there are no pears, Randall is allergic". 30 seconds. He wasn't going to waste his entire work day on it, but obviously the guy completely forgot, or didn't care to begin with, so, I think it's natural that Randall feels he's just a little work-horse and that people in this company don't care if he's hurting, all they care about is that he give them everything he has. Now, business is business, and it may be that companies really only should care about that, and we should all leave the personal stuff out, but studies have shown that people are more productive, more loyal, and just all around better employees when they feel they are being treated well, respected and happy in their jobs. So, it behooves the company to do better by its employees, because, in the end, it would be good for business too. I had a employee once who had a death in the family and I made sure to tell the secretary not to send flowers because I knew through a past conversation with them that their culture didn't have the custom of having flowers in a funeral. But that was a small company where everyone knew everyone else, so, it might have just been easier for us to be aware of these things.

I actually like it when there's an even playing field and the competition is about skill. If everything is the same for two contestants, it's down to ability, and so, the one with the best ability wins. I think good competitors, who are sure of their skills, want to beat someone "for real", not because the other person was handicapped in some way. I've lost count of the amount of chefs (including Shirley in this very episode) who have said that they don't want to win because their competitor was hindered by something out of their control. I think it's a lot more satisfying when you know you have beat the best, at their best. There's less satisfaction in winning a race because the front runner got a sprain close to the finish line, IMO. I think, IIRC, that Mike Isabella's famous pepperoni sauce, which had Gail drooling, was part of his main course when he competed against Blais. That was the winning dish in that round and he still lost the title. Side note: I recently watched the last season of Master Chef The Professionals (UK version) and was hooked. There is no drama, no fake situations, no hyping up supposed personal fights between competitors, no budgets, no catering events for 100 people, no limits on ingredients or cooking with one hand tied up behind your back. Only great chefs cooking great food. It was highly satisfying to watch.

Thanks for explaining. I guess unless you have dragons melting the ice down, it wouldn't be very interesting to watch ice melt, would it? :D

You do know that unless you have a live-watching party NO ONE is going to your birthday, right? :-)

I'm in London, so, no..... What is the stunt?

JULY?????!!!!!!!! GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!

I didn't say Brooke would screw up the protein, I said that her dish could be the losing one against Shirley's by switching the protein because maybe the combination is not as successful. Big difference. In the past, I have heard the judges comment on the history of the cheftestants when the final meal is "too close to call", for lack of a better term. Paul and what's her name in the Texas season had me worried because Paul had been stellar all season and what's her name was up and down, but to hear the judges comments on the food they were served that night, it was neck and neck. Apparently she cooked the meal of her lifetime, the judges said it was all delicious (as was Paul's). Had the judges decided that night that what's her name should have won, I'd have accepted it because I can't taste the food; so, if they had said she cooked the better meal, then she did, but I was hoping Paul did better than her because I liked him better (and it turned out he did)

Sometimes non-addicts would go to a party, drink too much, get behind the wheel of a car and die in a car crash. It happens all the time. I don't feel the need to have the show make a big storyline out Jack's fondness for alcohol (if that's how he's going to die).

Usually there are under-studies who are ready to go in case something happens to one of the actors. They show up at the same time the principals show up, they learn all the lines, they rehearse almost the same amount of time, they get into make-up at the same time as everyone else and they are ready to jump into the action at any time. I'm going to guess that Kevin's understudy was directed to go to the stage the second the lights went on and Kevin wasn't there. The lead actress would have had to improvise for a few seconds, but that shouldn't be a problem. Yeah, that's when the actor that shafted the studio and broke his contract is trying to get another job with a similar level studio executive for another part in another television show, but when Ron Howard wants you, no one is going to stand in the way. They may negotiate a settlement so that the former studio releases him of his obligations, but that will be as heated as it would get.

According to indexmundi the breakdown for the whole of Ireland is: So, 94.3% white.

I agree. That said, I think what some here are trying to point out is that a subgroup of the viewers who don't like a contestant's personality states that said contestant is a bad chef, not as good as another chef in the competition, or not deserving of the win. This is an impossible assertion to make because the people in that subgroup have not eaten any of the food prepared by any of the chefs in the competition. So, their argument has no merit and it's not objective. Basically it goes something like this (hyperbole is intentional, just to emphasize the point): I like Chef A = Chef A is the best chef evah! Everything they do is perfect and all their decisions are right I hate Chef B = Chef B doesn't even know how to boil water. Everything they do is wrong and has an ulterior motive The idea some of us are trying to get across is that one should separate personality from ability. For example, I have a very intense dislike for a soccer player called Diego Maradona (he was at the top of his field in the 80s - yeah, I'm old). I despise his personality and I think he's a scumbag. But, I would never say the guy was a horrible player. He was the best during his years playing pro, and his skills brought the Argentinian soccer team victories they hadn't seen in ages. One thing doesn't negate the other.

And pictures!

Asking someone for something is not a display of entitlement, IMHO. There's a difference between saying "may I have some of your pork belly if you will not use it?" vs. "give me your pork belly!". Also, she had a plan B and she had the ingredient for it (short ribs), it's obvious to me that if she ordered the plan B ingredient, she probably ordered the plan A one. The Hotel probably made a mistake because both contestants ordered the same ingredient. Who knows how that list was passed along to the hotel shoppers, or how that whole thing went down. Pork belly was Shirley's Plan B. Piglet shanks was her plan A. She was happy with the state of her Plan A protein and didn't need the Plan B, so she gave it to Brooke. She wasn't hindering herself or altering her plans to do so. She didn't give up anything she desperately needed and she waited until the last minute to give it, when she was absolutely sure she was happy with her plan A. I fail to see how this messed her up in any way. For all we know Brooke's recipe would have been as good with short ribs as it was with pork belly. But, for argument's sake let's say it wasn't. Let's say there was no pork belly on either side and she used short ribs. It seemed to me that the original meal score, from the comments was: Course 1: Brooke's oyster Course 2: Brooke's octopus Course 3: Tie between Brooke's pork & beans and Shirley's shanks Course 4: Shirley's rice pudding Let's say Brooke had to use short ribs and this resulted in her loosing course 3 to Shirley. It would have been a tie, in which case they would have evaluated the whole meal as a progression, and that was a tie too (from the comments, the judges were split with some thinking it was too bold of an entrance by Brooke and both Gail and Tom thinking it was OK to be bold). Then it would have been left to who had the most wins in the competition, and there, Brooke had Shirley beat too. So, IMO, the whole pork belly debacle is moot. Brooke would have won either way.

LOL!!! I guess it could, in which case..... who you gonna call?

Cooking is affected by many things, among them are the equipment you use (different brands of pressure cookers might require different time), how your ingredients were grown and the temperature/humidity of the place where you are cooking. I'll offer an example, once I was making a custard and I followed the recipe to the letter (I'm no chef, but I know my way around a kitchen and I certainly know how to follow a recipe), but it never set because the place where the recipe was created (US) didn't account for the humidity of the place where I was cooking (Venezuela), and so, it was too liquid when it went into the refrigerator, and it was never going to set. Octopus (like custard) is a very tricky ingredient to begin with, one minute could be all the difference between chewy and perfectly cooked. Brooke asked Sheldon how long because he had done it a few days before, he knew how the other factors in Mexico would affect cooking times. Note two very important things, IMO: 1) She didn't ask him how to season it, or how to flavor it. She had already decided her flavor profile. A perfectly cooked octopus without any seasoning or flavor is quite bland. 2) Sheldon suggested she actually cook it for less time than he did. He said he'd cooked it for 16 mins. but that she should do 14 mins. because he felt his octopus was a tad over So, even Sheldon, who some are arguing knows how to cook better than Brooke told her that he'd overcook his protein and the concept of the dish was totally hers. I don't see how any of this makes Brooke any less of a chef.

I think they should have explained the Beast Forever a little better, or perhaps reinforce some of the information the characters gave via exposition. The characters explained that the BF takes many different forms, and it doesn't even need to be a creature. The last time "it" came it was in the form of a huge wave of water, which drowned the witches and killed Lady Ev's parents. Apparently, Emerald City was saved because of the stone giants. This time, the BF has a heart, and so, it can be killed/stopped in a different way. I don't think any of the witches knew that the guy in the prison was the BF, otherwise, why would they not kill it? or post guards around it? It seems to me that the BF is an entity that can possess/invade/control/take the shape off something or someone and that when the characters say it can't be killed, it's because one form can be killed, but the BF will eventually come back. For the science-minded, like Frank, it's the principle that energy can't be destroyed, only transformed. So, in every iteration, this energy that is the BF transforms into something different. It just takes it a while to do so and only those that can read energy (like the witches or the council), can even attempt to know when it will come and what it will look like. You are correct, that slipped my mind. Perhaps Frank did know about the arrangement.

I've been thinking that perhaps Jane and Karen both are Dorothy's mother. Maybe it was Jane's egg implanted into Karen's womb, which would explain why Karen was the one who was pregnant and why Frank thought Karen was the mother. Also, maybe Jane suggested that Karen tattoo her hand so that she would have a way to convince Dorothy to listen to her, like Jane did in the finale.

I don't think the show was saying that Dorothy was indifferent or that having a non-reaction to a witch killing a human is noble. Before reaching that conclusion one has to see the context. First, this was said by Glinda, who has been portrayed as being a bit power hungry and almost as bad as the Wizard but on the opposite side (all for magic instead of all for science). It was this grey character who said the words, which is by no means the show trying to make a moral point or to get the audience to agree with Glinda. Second, Glinda is talking to Dorothy making it sound like she's about to concede to Dorothy and that she might just listen to Dorothy's reasons for not going to war because Dorothy didn't react like the Wizard who rejected all magic or was horrified by a witch killing a human, even though it was an accident, and immediately cast her out of her life (as someone who fears witches and magic would do). Then she made Sylvie start to destroy the giant. If anything, the show was making a point about Glinda being intransigent, a bit of a zealot when it comes to magic, manipulative, sarcastic, and perhaps even treacherous.