Danielg342

Maybe it was just the media that made it seem like the case was a slam dunk. I'm just going on memory about a case that happened eight years ago. I still think it reinforces my point that the legal system can react in ways many just don't expect.

I've heard that about the Vince McMahon documentary (I haven't seen it myself). If you know nothing about Vince it can be illuminating but if you knew the history beforehand, it really doesn't shed any new light or reveal anything you didn't know about. As for the Montreal Screwjob, I don't think it's right- in general- for people to go behind one of the performer's backs and change what happens in the match. It's a trust and a safety issue. If a wrestler is expecting certain move they can anticipate it and prepare for it. If their opponent decides to change their mind at the last second, the other wrestler might not be prepared for it and that can lead to an injury, or worse. Bret Hart was still under contract at the then-WWF for a few more weeks after Survivor Series. He never said, "I don't want to lose the title". He just didn't want to lose it in Canada. Vince and WWF could have easily accommodated his request and they chose not to. The thing about the law, which makes it equal parts fascinating and frustrating, is that there's still a lot of volatility when it comes to what happens. It really feels like when I have it all figured out, some strange case comes out of the blue and some weird ruling happens and everything I thought I knew would be thrown out the window. It's especially jarring for me on the sidelines, where I don't have a stake in what happens in court. I can only imagine how the people actually involved in a case feels when something strange happens. Which is kind of what makes commenting on legal matters very complicated. I've learned you really do have to have an open mind because even in a case that looks like it should be a foregone conclusion can have a detail that throws everything out of whack. I remember the Jian Ghomeshi trial here in my native Canada. Ghomeshi's victims E-Mailed each other and basically established a mini support group with each other and traded stories about their experience. That somehow got turned into, by Ghomeshi's lawyer, into "the victims were collaborating and conspiring against Jian Ghomeshi". The judge bought it and it became the basis of the eventual not-guilty verdict, on a case many thought would go the other way. Then there was another Canadian sexual assault case involving two student union members of a university that actually resulted in a conviction. The judge, however, quoted Maya Angelou and essentially played politics in his ruling. The conviction gets overturned and there's no new trial. So if you ask me, "can anything happen?" Well, it sure can. I don't know if it's all that great, but it's what it is.

I made a mistake vetting my source. Anyway, it might be the '80s but John DeLorean won in federal court despite the odds. In any case, this is all semantics. Don't get it twisted, I ain't defending Sean Combs at all. I'm just saying I don't put anything past a great lawyer.

OJ's lawyers cast doubt on DNA evidence when such evidence, at the time, was considered a slam dunk. Further, Diddy himself also won at federal court years ago. He probably likes his chances, as long as his lawyers don't make nonsensical arguments about baby oil. In any case, I don't put anything past a great lawyer. They don't play around either.

Might I remind you of the late OJ...I mean, few doubt he did the crime but Robert Shapiro still got him a not guilty verdict. A great lawyer can change a lot of things, and if there's someone who could afford such a lawyer, it's Diddy. So if Diddy's lawyers make silly arguments in front of the court, it's really on Diddy this time for spending his money poorly.

Now you get two different types of single parents. If you have a character whose children are infants or pre-teens, that character will likely be a single mother. If you have a character whose children are teens or even adults, that character will be a single father. I think of this as having the hallmarks of being the product of having too many male writers and creators, because the gender stereotypes are still very strong. Women are allowed to be playful and silly- childlike, you could say- so they can be seen with babies and pre-teens, plus women are always seen as better than men at things like changing diapers. Men, on the other hand, while they can be nurturers too, their nurturing is typically portrayed as the "noble teacher" type, the one that gives "sage advice" and imparts "hard life lessons". Your father is supposed to be the one that teaches you how to drive a car or tells you "the importance of hard work"- and not be the type that goes down the Slip 'N' Slide with you. This also explains the divergence in the "single parent" storylines. Men, apparently, are supposed to be able to be at peace with themselves with being alone, and male characters who steel themselves and project an outer strength despite hidden struggles and weaknesses plays up to ideas of "honour" and "valour" that are stereotypical male traits. Which is why, usually, a single dad storyline almost always begins with the man adjusting to being alone and raising his teenage daughter (they almost always have teenage daughters) while he broods over the death of his wife (and single dads are almost always widowers). He's "not ready" to date yet because he's "not yet over his wife" and it's almost always a storyline in of itself for the dad to develop the courage to date again. Meanwhile, women are supposed to be so spooked at being single that almost immediately single moms will start dating again, even though they're not "over" their ex (and single mothers are almost always divorced). Her beginning storyline is almost always about trying to find a babysitter and having dating mishaps because she "rushed into dating too soon". She might even eventually find someone she thinks is "the one" but, because she's "not yet over her ex", the relationship ultimately falters. Only then does she learn she has to properly grieve her loss before she can go back out there again. Sometimes you might get variations, but it's almost always the single dad is divorced from a woman that, once we meet her, is so downright nasty we wonder how the two even fell in love in the first place. The idea that people simply just "fall apart" is foreign to Hollywood, at least on the male side of things. As is the idea that women can get comfortable being alone and may not rush to date again (if they ever even decide to do it again), or that men can absolutely hate being lonely and have dating mishaps because of it. I lost my mother nine years ago, and my dad is as "anti-Hollywood" here as you can get. Immediately he went back into dating because he just couldn't stand the thought of being alone. He wound up with a string of dating mishaps because he just wasn't ready to date again, because he didn't properly grieve. Barely a year after my mother's death he finds a woman who sticks with him, because I think she, too, was tired of being lonely (she was also a widower). She's also a pushover and he's a control freak, so I guess they fit. They did marry and, to their credit, they're still together. Anyway, I won't bore anyone else anymore over my personal life, but I always think of how my dad behaved and how it's just so different from the typical portrayals of single fathers in Hollywood. I find that women in Hollywood- who are at least not intended to be plot devices for male characters (which they'll almost inevitably become anyway)- tend to be written one of two ways: She's super smart, super proficient and excels at just about everything, and everyone is in visible awe at her accomplishments. Her struggles are superficial, if she ever really has any, and the people who view her negatively are almost always people the audience are supposed to dislike- the sympathetic characters are all tripping over themselves with praise of her. She has one hundred million flaws, so much so that you question her overall competency. She's behind on her rent with excuses that get more extravagant, she's reckless with her money, she'll eat just about anything (but not gain any weight, apparently) and she'll wear the most ragged, plain clothing you can find, usually soiled because she can't bother with laundry. If she dates, she'll never commit to anyone, because she's so far depressed that she'll engage with anyone who will fill her "physical void", if you know what I mean. She'll be played by an actress who many would consider absolutely beautiful, because this character "could be beautiful if she tried", which she invariably does not. The first one usually has a beauty component to it as well, but not always- sometimes that role will be male, and if the role is male, expect the male to be a minority (unless he's Black, in which case he'll just adopt Black stereotypes) or to be an "awkward" guy who struggles to talk to women and isn't as "manly" as the other men in the cast. Why this happens is because I think there are far too few writers in Hollywood who seek to genuinely explore female characters, who are almost always "tack on" characters to a cast so that the show can claim a diversity it really does not represent. The writers here simply want a character who can be "instantly" likeable or relatable, without actually putting in the work to make them at all likeable or relatable. The result are characters who may look deep and developed but are really flat and shallow upon further analysis. Everything they'll do on the show will be superficial, and they'll continue on the show until the actress tires of playing a role without depth or the writers "find something to do" for the character, which almost always turns them into some kind of plot device for another character, usually one of the featured main male characters. The characterizations come about because I believe execs and writers misunderstand the common complaint about female characters in the past- the lack of "strong female characters". They interpret this to mean creating characters who will give the appearance of some kind of strength or inspire some kind of strength- inner or outer strength- when the complaint really calls for the opposite. From my vantage point, it's all about not creating superficial characters, of any kind. It's about having characters- male or female- that are fundamentally sound, characters who have storylines and ambitions and struggles and conflicts that are entirely their own, or at least can stand on their own even when they interact with other characters. It's not about having a woman who's so good that she has 50 PhDs, or a woman who is so bad that she gets so hungover that she's constantly late for work and behind on 50 different bills and her rent because of it. It's about Alice, who lives in a small town and runs the local bakery out of her house. She struggles with rent because the town isn't very big so her clientele is not large. Her parents give her money to stay afloat but secretly she resents it because Alice hates receiving handouts. She pines for Bob, one of her regular customers, but her attraction to him is only a part of her story. Alice has many dreams- moving to the city, expanding the bakery, or maybe saving enough money so she can go back to school and follow another one of her passions- but, for now, she's got to sort out her life and gain some more stability because only then will she be able to more seriously think about her other goals. Something like that. I thought of that off the top of my head, and it amazes me how simple it can be but Hollywood writers never seem to think of that. Some of, supposedly, the best writers in the world and yet we routinely get stuck with scripts I doubt a high school teacher would accept.

I think we have to be careful before we go with the whole "guilt by association" thing. It's quite likely that a lot of people in Diddy's circle, at the height of his power, simply "went along to get along" because they believed challenging Diddy was fruitless. Even the most powerful figures may have felt that they needed to "respect" his position because he'd still have enormous influence in the industry, and I'm sure many feared that trying to take on Diddy could have disastrous consequences. I mean, let's not forget the last time a power rap mogul took on Diddy two high profile rappers were gunned down. That's not exactly something you take lightly, no matter how rational it may actually be. It's important to point out the people who started Diddy's latest descent are arguably people who have proverbially nothing to lose- Cassie and Dawn Richard. Their careers are already railroaded (likely by Diddy himself) so challenging Diddy might not really hurt them so much. To close, I'm not saying those who looked the other way are in the right. All I'm saying is that I don't think they deserve quite the same amount of outrage as Diddy does- they did not commit the crimes (to my knowledge) and they had perfectly reasonable grounds for being dismissive of Diddy's acts. So they at least deserve some benefit of the doubt.

First of all, I would say it's not weird or strange at all to feel this way- it's completely normal. Picking a favourite celebrity is like picking a favourite in other fields- like sports, other forms of entertainment or even politics- so having a favourite becomes ingrained as part of who you are as a person. So when that person does something that is less than how we perceived them to be, it can feel like a part of us has died. Which is why a lot of people respond with grief, because the feeling in this context is very much the same. What this means is that it's not weird at all to be sad and disappointed that Diddy has let you down so spectacularly. It might feel weird because- I assume- you have not personally met Diddy, but understand it's no less valid or weird to feel this way. You form a bond with a celebrity by becoming their fan, and it's perfectly fine to question that bond when that celebrity does something unbecoming and be sad when you feel the celebrity has wronged you so much that you feel you have to break that bond. As for myself, I feel like when it comes to Diddy it feels like his relationship with the public is very complex and has far more nuance than the relationships other celebrities may have with the public. Diddy was never universally loved or universally hated- depending on what happened, he oscillated between the two ends of the spectrum, but, also because of the totality of all the things he's done, he never quite reaches, at the very least, the "absolute love" part of the spectrum. I used to love his music myself. No Way Out is still one of my personal favourites and I felt for him because Diddy was quite open about the pain he felt concerning the death of The Notorious B.I.G. Plus, he drew further sympathy as one of the many rappers who achieved a life of fame and fortune after living in abject poverty. ...but...as the years progressed and the scandals piled up, that sympathy gradually washed away. At first I could rationalize it by saying he has his demons and they may be far greater than the ones I may have to deal with, but there comes a point where you can no longer give him the benefit of the doubt anymore. I think that's the most important part of the Diddy experience- it's not like he had a singular event or a had a series of small events and then a huge event that knocked him off his pedestal. Diddy, it seems, goes through a major scandal every few years, and they're usually the type of scandals that would level celebrities of a lesser profile. He always found a way to move on and recover a bit from his latest transgression, but I think his big problem is that, as the scandals pile up, it becomes harder and harder for him to completely recover from whatever new problem befalls him. We as a public, I think, in general can be quite forgiving when celebrities have a misstep. After all, we recognize they're humans just like we are, and we all make mistakes. However, when that person- like Diddy- keeps on making mistakes, and keeps on making major mistakes- it can become harder and harder to move past them. We wonder if the person is truly remorseful and is actually trying to move past their transgressions and become a better person, or, worse, we'll wonder if they even want to try to improve and become a better person. After a while, it's the whole "crying wolf" phenomenon- Diddy may come out and say the right things and do the right things after a scandal, but when the process keeps repeating itself and nothing seems to actually get better, the acts of contrition and remorse begin to feel hollow. This is before we get to the latest series of stuff that Diddy is accused of doing and, if he's convicted, I'm sure there's really no way back. I'm not even sure there's a way back even if he escapes conviction- this just may be a major scandal that, for a lot of people, is "one too many". Even if he's actually innocent of the charges (and I make that distinction because there's a difference between "not guilty" and actual innocence), I think that because Diddy has created this larger than life persona and cultivated an image that is, frankly, one where he is pompous and arrogant and feels "higher" than the plebeians "below" him, there will just be too many people that will think he "got off easy" and will remain convinced he's guilty of the crimes he stood accused of, even if a court emphatically says he isn't. That said, even among those who will accept the court's decision in that scenario, they just may say that Diddy's arrogance has gone too far and they're "done" with him anyway, because even if he's exonerated, he's still not the "better" man he ought to be and who knows, by now, if he ever will be.

I see...my bad. Well, I still think JJ could still vent to Reid about her own marital problems, even if she doesn't cheat on Will with Reid. Reid would still be her closest friend.

I remember way back when I suggested pairing up the teammates romantically as ideas for storylines and I got roasted for it, the reason being that it was great that CM was the kind of show that didn't do that kind of thing. I can kind of see that, though I was never of the opinion that the entire team ought to get paired up with each other. It seems strange to me that in 15 years of the broadcast series they never explored a workplace affair given how "close" the team supposedly was. ...and maybe there could have been something with JJ and Hotch. They were around each other far more often than they were around their own significant others. Then again, I seem to recall both Erica Messer and Edward Allen Bernero stating they didn't see Hotch as the type who'd cheat on his spouse. I get that vibe with JJ too, so I'm hesitant to go "all in" on a "JJ cheats on Will" storyline. That said, I think one of Evolution's better parts in its first season was that Will finally seemed to address the inequities in the relationship and JJ had to come to terms with working so hard she was neglecting her family. I don't know why they dropped that storyline, because it was refreshing to see the "person married more to the job than their family" storyline from a female perspective, as it's usually done from a male perspective. I guess I just don't know where you go with this. It sounds to me that the more plausible one to cheat would be Will, because he actually has the time and energy to do something like that. I'm also not sure whom JJ can turn to in the current lineup of BAU agents, considering the only close to her age- Luke- is in a ridiculous chase after Garcia. Is this where Reid comes back and we find out that Reid teaches at a local college and keeps up with JJ because the two often have lunch together? I'm sure there would be a few fans who'd like that, but then Reid would be accused of trying to break up a marriage that he's actually invested in (being the godfather to JJ's kids). Then again, if it's played right it could be a storyline that works. If Reid and JJ become closer because JJ vents to him about her problems with Will and they develop a relationship because of it, that could more palatable than just starting an affair storyline right away. JJ and Reid already have that history- JJ has outright said that she's always loved Reid and they did have a date early in the series' run- so a love angle, with some hesitation first because I can't see either wanting to break up a marriage, could work. I remember objecting to it during the series because I thought JJ and Reid had a great platonic relationship and that never gets represented in Hollywood, ever. I still have those same objections, but Reid no longer being a CM regular cast member and the show pursuing JJ/Will tensions makes me think that maybe there's an angle where JJ+Reid might work.

They kept saying "we had no stories for JJ" yet they never tried, even once, to have a storyline or a subplot in an episode where JJ has to work hard to deal with panicky politicians who are threatening to undermine the work the BAU are doing because their citizens are at their necks because the bodies are piling up. Far too often- given the criminals the BAU deals with- the places they travel to act like everything is just fine and peaceful. I don't know about you but if I lived in an area where a serial killer was known to be on the loose I'd be at least a little anxious. JJ could have been a great conduit to express a city's concerns and navigate some of that real world, public angst that the show far too often glossed over. I personally don't understand why Evolution didn't do this from the outset. Many revived series- like The Conners and Murphy Brown- hired newer, younger characters to kickstart their revivals, but CM opted to simply go with the same cast that ended the broadcast series, minus Matthew Gray Gubler and Daniel Henney. In doing so, I think the show shorn themselves of their best actors, since Henny brought a "presence" the show has lacked since Morgan and Gubler...well, I'm not sure I can summarize all the things he does well in his acting in one sentence or even one word, but I'll agree with others that he really did make things more human and more real. I know I've said, partly in jest, that I would have loved seeing the show use the "long lost twin" trope as an excuse to bring back Amy Davidson just so I could experience Zoe Hawkes again, but I do think, in seriousness that kind of character would have been perfect for the revival. This kind of ties back to the JJ discussion in that the show glossed over the struggles she'd have adjusting to her new role as a profiler, and that really torpedoed her character early on in that process. If you want to create a great female character- heck, a great character, period- you need to have someone who struggles but eventually works through them and overcomes their struggles. Plus, a younger profile opens up more possibilities for the rest of the cast. Prentiss and Rossi could become parental figures to the newbie. The newbie could also be there to not just learn profiling on the job (which, I would agree with @JMO is something Evolution should have done), but to challenge the team and explore new ways of doing things. Which would have been especially pointed given that Evolution wanted to explore a "new" type of serial killer. Wouldn't a new agent, with fresh insights and without developing the habits that the older, more experienced agents have, be a great character to tell the team, "you can crack the case but only if you start looking at it differently"? I could go on, but a new agent would be more than just some "pretty new thing" to look at it. It really could have opened up some more interesting narrative doors.

I responded here because I think my response might be a bit off-topic for the episode itself: Paramount+ Criminal Minds - Page 4 - Criminal Minds - PRIMETIMER

I noticed it too, and, shallow it may be of me, it does rankle me a little. The cast members look old and tired, and the cast just reeks of "we're only here because we couldn't get a job anywhere else". Do I think Hollywood is pedantic with its beauty and age standards, especially for women? All the time. If this wasn't CM, I might even say I'm happy that CM remembered that veteran actresses usually are far better at acting than many of the younger starlets who, despite being "prettier", look way in over their heads on a Hollywood screen. A strong acting performance always is more noticeable than someone who is just there to be "pretty". I mean, if I just wanted to look at pictures of pretty women, Instagram does enough for me. However, this is CM...and I see this as part of the larger malaise that plagues the program. See, Erica Messer's modus operandi has been to always do things to "stand out" and be "noticed", to the complete detriment of things like basic storycraft and actual, real, character development. The stuff that would actually not just get people to notice the program but actually stick around. To wit, we have a show that gives us the following: We have a show with an older cast- especially among the women- so the show can say they're "different" because they're "not conforming to Hollywood beauty standards". We have a show where one of the active storylines are two supermodel-type men are pining after an overgrown woman-child who, frankly, is hardly attractive in any way, as some kind of response to all those Hollywood programs where "beautiful women" inexplicably fall for "ugly men". We have a show that prefers omnivore-type serial killers just so they can have primarily male victims get shown on screen to get cut up and killed, with the only female victims getting saved in the end with hardly a scratch, in what I can only assume is an attempt to counter the "monster misogyny" trope. We have a show that is filmed almost entirely in the dark- literally- out of some belief that it "creates mood". We have a show that awkwardly makes its characters swear simply because "we can do it now". We have a show that relies far too much on gratuitous and meaningless gore. We have a show that is so bad at crafting character stories that the only ideas they ever have to give their characters any kind of drama is to put them in some kind of peril or to kill someone close to them (if not both), since the show would rather have their "emotionally shocking moment" without putting in the actual work to, well, make it work. We have a show that routinely falls in love with the "Big Bad" trope because it's "cool" and, as is typical of Hollywood, does none of the actual legwork to make it work. Oh, I would also criticize the fact that, some time during the crafting of Evolution, it was decided out of the blue to make Tara a lesbian (even though she had a husband whom she divorced on the broadcast series), but I think the show actually did pretty well with the Tara-Rebecca pairing (since the two have obvious chemistry), even if the stories they gave that pairing was crap. Given it's track record, it's small wonder the show is falling flat on its face. They're so demonstrably pretentious and ostentatious that they're tripping over themselves by trying too hard to be "different". Don't get me wrong, I don't think it's bad, in principle, for any show to try to be different from others. However, you have to root everything you do into a well-thought, coherent and honest story, because if you're not providing people with a compelling story to follow, your ostentatiousness sticks out like a sore thumb. Because that's where CM gets it wrong. They are, consistently, not trying to be "different" because they think a different angle on a popular trope is generally interesting and worth expanding upon. They are simply trying to be "different" because they simply want to get noticed and maybe be applauded for their "difference". Their disingenuousness, dishonesty and hubris is just so disheartening, and it's small wonder to me why it doesn't connect with me anymore.

I guess we don't know any further details, such as the name of his character and what the character will be like.

They never really kissed- which got so bad it became a running joke and later formed the basis for an episode- which further reinforces the idea they were badly planned characters. Obviously I don't know for sure, but something tells me that the studio never told the actors playing the gay couple that they'd have to kiss on camera. I mean, I get that maybe the network was still leery at the time about showing two men kissing on camera, but it's a massive oversight that, on a show where a married gay couple are regulars, the couple didn't show affection for each other.

Sounds like I didn't miss much this season. Glad I stepped out. I do have one question (though I suspect the answer)- did we ever get to *see* the deepfake porn? Or did the team just talk about it? CM talked a big game about being able to do things on Paramount+ that they couldn't do on broadcast TV, and showing nudity is one of them.

I feel in S3 that the main characters displayed their personalities far more than in later seasons, and the show was far more consistent about it then than later. S4 started the trend where the episodes focused less on the characters and- though I still very much enjoyed S4 and S5- that's when things started to go off the rails, since those seasons started the trend of characters simply behaving for plot purposes.

I hate to say it...and I'm very willing to still give the character a chance and see how she actually plays out on screen... ...but... This new Devin Gamble character is giving me "Mary Sue" vibes and I don't like it. They are already presenting her as someone who seems to know "more" than the other members of the team, which is not a good sign. Her background is interesting but I'm not sure it will have any tangible impact on her character, until we get the inevitable episodes where her family's criminal operations make their way to LA (because you know they will). I hold out hope that perhaps Gamble can be a bit of a "Hondo Jr." and she gives Hondo fits like Hondo did himself back in S1 with Hicks, since it could be a great way to see Hondo's own growth come full circle. One of the problems I have with the show is that the team can run a little "too well" and I think they need someone to stir things up a little bit.

I'm surprised the Questrade ads in Canada have yet to make this list. They've annoyed me for the past four years and I've just about had it with their nonsense. For those who don't know the ads, Questrade started a schtick around the beginning of the pandemic where they claim that if you invest with them and not pay "high fees" associated with other investment brokerages, you can attain guaranteed wealth. What these "high fees" are is never explained, the closest Questrade ever gets to explaining them is an apparent 2% fee applied to most of their competitors' mutual funds. One ad features a professor telling his class about "compound interest" and saying that by not paying the 2% fee, you can earn over $400,000 more over the lifetime of the investment. Now, I admit, I'm not the most investment literate guy on the planet, but these ads send off the "B.S." meter about 100 times. There might actually be some truth in that not paying "high fees" would lead to a greater return on investment, as, after all, you'll get to keep more of that investment for yourself. However, there's no guarantee that, without the fee, you will get a great return on the investment. I mean, it's not rocket science for me to explain that investments are volatile. It's like gambling, in a way, as investors essentially bet on stocks and the return on investment is based on those stocks' performances, which are not guaranteed. Yes, there are tricks of the trade that can make investments more of a "sure thing", but it's always an inexact science. So Questrade, essentially, guaranteeing that you will earn more with them with their "lower fees" is a flat out lie. You might- especially if you know what you're doing- but it's also no guarantee. If it sounds fishy, Questrade likely realized it because part of this ad series has people explaining that, within the Questrade app, are the advice of "top analysts". Which, of course, sounds great at first glance- but who these "top analysts" are is never explained. For all I know, it could be Jim Cramer...or it could be someone's dog. Overall, the ads give off incredibly "scammy" vibes. I have been, unfortunately, a victim of one of those scams so I have some experience with how they work. The main trick a scammer uses are promises of big fortune and great results with grand statements and lots of emphasis on how much you'll gain with the scam all while being light on the actual details. That's because the scammer knows that the actual details aren't as rosy as the presentation of them are, and that if you did know the details, you likely wouldn't go through with the scam. Now, I'm not suggesting that Questrade is, itself, a scam. They have been around since 1999, they've survived three economic bust periods (the dot-com bust, the 2008 economic crisis, the COVID-19 pandemic) and they likely couldn't get away with airing this ad campaign for four years if there wasn't the slightest bit of truth about them. However, even if Questrade has a large barrage of happy customers, it still doesn't excuse them from overpromising to a large group of people. By having a series of ads guaranteeing great wealth, you are setting up a good proportion of people for failure, and they will not be happy about it. It would not surprise me if there's a Questrade lawsuit at some point down the road. That's not the worst part of what Questrade has done. More recently, Questrade has come out with a series of ads which are actual, verifiable lies, ones that you don't need financial literacy to understand. The Government of Canada has come out with a new tax-free savings account with the intent of helping people save up for a home. Of course, this TFSA has a limit of $40,000, and I don't know of a single home anywhere in this country that will cost me $40,000. $40K also isn't even enough for a down payment, at least in places like Toronto and Vancouver, where the average house price is north of $1 million. ...but there's Questrade, boldly declaring that if you sign up for their TFSA, you will be able to afford a home. One of their actors even outright says so, declaring to the camera "because it's not a matter of 'if' we can afford a home but how soon." Buddy, you're not buying a house with $40K. Stop kidding yourself. Which leads me to the worst part about these Questrade ads- who they are targeting. Questrade decided its target audience were young adults and millennials like me, people who have, historically, struggled financially. Now, we can debate forever about why those generations are struggling and what the solutions ought to be, but if there's one thing I know for sure, there are no "magic tricks" that are going to allow the struggling generation to fix their problems. Thus, there's nothing sicker and more disgusting in my mind that there's a company that has the audacity to claim that they're some "financial superhero" that's going to solve all of my problems and the problems of people like me. Stop trying to fool me, Questrade. It won't work. That's not the worst part about that line of targeting. The worst part is that people who are struggling are vulnerable, and they're more prone to scammy tricks than those who are better off. I would hazard a guess that many millennials and young adults struggling to make ends meet don't have the financial literacy to know the difference between a bad deal and a good deal, so the chance that they'll get hoodwinked by Questrade's vague promises of massive wealth with "lower fees" is quite high. ...and quite maddening, because I'm sure the company's marketing department knows this. There's nothing more upsetting for me than someone who decides to willfully take advantage of someone else, especially someone who is vulnerable. It's bad enough to have an ad with questionable metrics that has the potential to mislead- it's even worse to target said ad to people who might not be able to catch those misleadings and who need to be misled the least. Hopefully I am wrong and the ads are just poor presentation, with the many customers satisfied with what they have. It still doesn't clean the bad taste out of my mouth this ad leaves, and it doesn't make me feel any better when I fear what the actual reality of this ad could be.

Sounds like a Kirsten Vangsness vanity project. I mean, yeah, I'm sure Kirsten's a lovely lady in person and I don't think she's ugly, but I don't think anyone would think she's got "model-like good looks", plus she'll be 52 on July 7. It seems beyond ridiculous that she'd have two "supermodel" type guys (Tyler and Luke) who are head over heels for her, especially considering that one of the characters (Tyler) is likely considerably younger than she is. More to the point, I'd have a hard time buying Luke would be attracted to Garcia just based on personality alone. He seems to be a chill guy who likes a chill girl- his ex, Lisa, fit that bill. He also doesn't seem to have any nerdy or tech interests at all. About the only thing I'll give "Garvez" is that Luke and Garcia have chemistry together...but it's more "brother/sister" chemistry than romantic. You know, we like to criticize male writers for writing themselves into unbelievable romances where drop-dead gorgeous women are head over heels into rather ugly men (in looks and in personality) so I think we've got to fault Criminal Minds for doing the same thing. Sure, Vangsness is not officially a decision maker on the show, but she's written episodes with Erica Messer (the showrunner) several times in the past so I'm sure she has Messer's ear more often that not. Plus, CM's also shown they've given in to the "wokeness" with their over-abundance of male damsels in distress that do nothing except get butchered on screen, so it does not surprise me that CM also decided they wanted to do a "ugly woman/hot lovers" storyline. Don't get me wrong- there's nothing wrong in principle with that storyline but CM decided, at random, that Tyler and Luke were going to be head over heels for Garcia without any buildup or nuance and that just reeks of a vanity job.

Thanks @JMO for the support. I really appreciate it. 🙂 So, because CM made me depressed, can I sue them and force them to make me their showrunner? 😋

Are these writers 12 years old or something? Why is JJ swearing and Prentiss smoking such BIG! DEALS! OMG! Based on what I have read so far, this season has sounded so ridiculous. I don't feel too bad for checking out.

'NCIS Tony and Ziva' Casting Spoilers: Nanny, Hacker, Tali (tvline.com)

I remember a few years ago Erica Messer complained that she wished Criminal Minds wasn't on broadcast television because she wanted the show to be "edgier". I criticized her then for it and I'll criticize her for it now. Being "edgy" doesn't make a show good. Your show gains nothing just because you can bare the human body, show more blood, swear up a storm and (apparently) have characters smoking cigarettes (I didn't know smoking cigs was banned on broadcast TV, especially given how many times I see broadcast TV characters drinking beers, but, whatever). Just like with anything else in the story, what you decide to do has to work for the plot. That's not the only thing about shock value, albeit that is the most important aspect of it. The other thing about shock value is that I have seen it used far too many times by lazy writers and producers in a bid to get eyeballs, so I'm extra cynical about anyone who tries to be "shocking". Far too many times I've seen writers think they don't need to write a good episode because they have this "amazing scene" where someone literally blows up "real good" with blood and guts and all kinds of nice stuff flying everywhere. Newsflash: shock without substance is boring. As it pertains to CM, I've never understood why it needed shock value in the first place. Perhaps the only thing it could have benefitted from is that when we have a serial killer who likes to carve a body in a specific way, it might actually benefit to see the carving instead of having the characters talk about it. Then again, I feel such a benefit is tangential and I'm not sure the gains in the narrative are worth the unease the audience would feel upon seeing such a thing. Does the audience need to, say, actually see a Celtic cross carved in someone's buttocks or does a character talking about it do enough for the plot? I'm going to close with one final note- some of you might wonder why I haven't posted any reviews for this season. It's not because I haven't gotten around to it- it's because I haven't watched it at all so far. ...and, frankly, I'm not sure I ever will. I'm not saying this for attention or sympathy, but I've been battling depression for a while. Going through it, I think about all the things that I did to bring me joy in my life and I think about if those things still really bring me joy, and if it's worth the energy to seek out that joy. Truthfully, I don't know if CM really brings me any kind of joy anymore. Anyone who has followed my reviews knows I haven't rated the show well for literally almost a decade. I don't know how many "F's" and "D's" that I have but I'm sure it's a lot. I'm not really sure I've truly enjoyed the show since the end of S5. I soldiered along, I thought, after that out of a sense of obligation, but what I realize now is that I soldiered along because there were at least characters and the odd story that I still cared about. Even then, the main characters who I did like- Morgan, Elle, Gideon, Hotch, Reid and Simmons- had more to do with the actors portraying them than any actual great characterization, with the exception of Reid and Gideon because I think they're actually great characters. The rest of the cast I feel may have had their moments but they were all, mostly, middling to average at best. They may have made an episode or a scene somewhat watchable, but they rarely made anything memorable. Still, I figured last season I'd give CM another chance. Maybe it's because I didn't want to give up on CM so quickly. Maybe it's because I wanted to see how CM would navigate being on a streamer as opposed to broadcast TV. Or, maybe I remembered the few moments of greatness I'd seen from the likes of Joe Mantegna and Paget Brewster, and I hoped, with a more streamlined cast, they could given more opportunities to shine and help the show recapture some of the magic it had lost. What I saw was something completely different. I complained once before on these boards that the show's cast reeked of actors being on the show because they're seeking a payday they can't get anywhere else. Last season, I think, really played out that way. Honestly, I felt like I was watching the FBI's "Geriatric Ward", because all I saw were characters who were uninspired, clearly over the hill and well past their prime. Worse, none of the characters the show brought in to "freshen" the series did anything to benefit the show, let alone elevate it. Zach Gilford and Ryan-James Hatanka are fine enough actors, but their characters added very little. Nicholas D'Agostino did an okay job as Bailey, but Bailey was hardly anything more than your garden variety obstructive bureaucrat. Then there were the stories...or lack thereof. It was presented as "a serial killer with a killing network" but it meandered between showing flashes of that network mixed inside a story of Elias Voit and his troubled family. It went everywhere but got nowhere, as the writers couldn't be bothered to explore any of their stories despite not having the time restrictions that broadcast TV gave them. What's inside those stories were hardly any better. The characters swore a few times, each time awkwardly because the curse words were shoehorned into the speech. Garcia gets told not to date a material witness (a storyline that was already absurd) and, when she does, nothing happens. Then there's the show's continued overreliance on "damsels in distress", or, what they really happened to be, were "disposable victims". Those victims- which could be shown cut up in all their glory- were mostly male in what is a clear (and extremely misguided) attempt at gender politicking in trying to subvert the "monster misogyny" trope (one that actually has a basis in reality). Worse at the obvious attempt at preaching was their uselessness in the plot and their utter disposability. Scenes of victims- male or female- screaming and getting cut up add nothing to the narrative, and it'd be better just to have the dead bodies if the characters will do little more than be the serial killer's target practice. Which is bad enough...but the show decides these disposable victims can be "clues" in the case, treating them as mere puzzle pieces in a grand puzzle. The show displays no remorse, no sympathy and no attempt to really make the victims feel human at all. They're just there so the BAU can use them to solve the puzzle and claim a "happy ending" when they stop the serial killer at the final moment, without so much as a mention or a nod to the countless lives that were lost in their reckless, callous wake. All in all, I looked at last season and I felt like I'm just watching the worst of CM from its final years, all multiplied by 11, without anything redeeming about it. ...and I sat there and looked at it and thought, "why do I want to sit through that again?" It's sad for me to think that a show that had once captivated me endlessly and inspired me to pick up a (metaphorical) pen and write could have fallen so far, but it's the truth. I don't see a show that has any magic, boundless potential and any hope that it could recapture that magic and capitalize on its lost potential. All I see is a burning wreckage, a husk of what once was, with nothing at all useable or salvageable. I wish the CM people well and I hope they are happy at what they're doing...but, unless something drastic happens between now and next season, I can't see any reason to come back to these smouldering ruins.

I'm not surprised the British shows provided some examples of realistic fallibility. Those shows tended to be a bit more realistic. I just wish we had more examples on this side of the pond, because we don't see it enough from Hollywood. Also, I wasn't talking about nudists. I'm aware a lot of shows have nudists. I'm talking about "everyday" people being, occasionally, doing something non-sexual, likely at home (where they could get away with it) in the nude or mostly in the nude. Because- although it really could just be me- I'm sure there are people who doff at least some of their clothes when others are not around. I remember when I worked at the factory that when I got home I usually took off my pants because they got uncomfortable after a long day.