Continuing tale of the doctor who took things into his own hands. True to their word, the doctor was formally arraigned today and his bail was set at a fortune level. He made bail. His attorney will begin negotiations with the district attorney. Neither wants a trial. Emotions would be elevated and public sympathy will probably fall on the side of the doctor. I will meet with the doctor next weekend. As I stated, I have known him for 9 years, and have found him to be a kind and sympathetic person. Yet, something made him snap, and he went way overboard. He was charged with various counts of assault. I am not an attorney and do not know the actual wording of the charges. Needless to say, attacking someone with a potential weapon is not taken lightly by the authorities. However, we cannot discount the effect of emotions and the trauma what he witnessed. This is the similarity to Neil. Neil assaulted Simon, yet did no damage and no legal repercussions. The doctor in this horrible event, would have been wise to lower the weapon and just beat the crap out of the minister. In this area, I doubt that the district attorney could assemble a jury to issue a unanimous verdict against the doctor if the violence had occurred with just fisticuff. I know that this seems strange, but I live in a community which tends to forgive acts of passion. The more affluent parts of Southern California are just like that. I do not approve of any violence to the cheating spouse.. She is filth and should be dismissed as such. The wife has been locked out of the house and all the major bank accounts have been frozen. She is on her own, literally. I heard from the doctor's sister, that the wife has been shunned by her peers in the community. The doctor's sister (on my staff) attends the same church as her brothers spouse. The cheating minister is a source of open ridicule. The majority of parishioners openly mock him and have no sympathy. The wife of the minister has not been seen by the parishioners. He is done. This is as bad an outcome as can be postulated. Adultery has consequences, and in extreme circumstances may even prove life threatening.
"The finale was crafted very well, in such a way that could serve as a series or season ender." You must be from Venus.
Ready for Miss Bunting to go bye-bye. She's clearly only coming to actively stir the pot with her hostile superiority. It's the height of rudeness and is inexcusable sitting at their table partaking of their generosity. She doesn't have to agree with him but she does have to be civil and gracious of his hospitality. She thinks quite a lot of herself, just in a different way than do those who she looks down her nose at. I understand Lord Grantham is taking some hits over his reaction but I say it was high time she was called out and he had already shown a great amount of restraint during the previous . You simply should not have to abide a personal attack time and again at your own dinner table from people you are feeding. I can fault him for bringing Daisy and Mrs Patmore up though. And Tom should have already been thoroughly embarrassed by Bunting. At this point she's reflecting badly on him. It's fine that he agrees with her but her stellar lack of class and manners should've clued him in their meets should be held elsewhere. Agreed that Violet and Isobel are just the bright spots more times than not. Heaven knows we could use some bright spots after any and all of Edith's scenes. And what about Mr Molesley ..he has a hard enough time as it is. I felt badly for him. Hate they're resurrecting the Bates and Anna mess from prior seasons. I was tired of it last year. I don't even care to watch during those scenes.
I like what you said. To me Miss Sarah Bunting is just as snotty as some of the Grantham the only difference is they are upper class snotty and she is lower class snotty
I got a zombie vibe when they all swarmed the house coming after Rachel. It definitely had a series finale vibe too, which is okay because the show has gone downhill this season.
Wow, why to completely miss a episode point.
I feel that we currently have too many secondary characters with storylines that are completely independent of each other and, at this point in time, don't appear to intersect or have a common demnominator to create a cohesive story that unfolds to show a relationship to the greater arc. Now, that being said, everything could change in one episode and we could start to understand how all of these characters and their stories are really part of a bigger story that is being told in a very subtle way. I am concerned that Cass lost his GRACE at the beginning of Season 9 and here we are in Season 10 and that story has not moved forward with the exception of Crowley's intervention. This is a general concern that I have with the season is the writers don't seem to be moving the ball forward towards a clear goal or end. This could all be intentional and I am hopeful and optimistic that all will come together and intersect in a climactic moment or episode where we will be like "OMG" I didn't see that coming and that was awesome. I just don't want to have to waddle through an entire season to see resolution to problems that have been around for well over a season now. I am hopeful that there will be a meaningful point to the Claire storyline other than it was created to fill time in epsidoes. I'm sure the writers have a clear plan here - it's just hard to see what they may have in store for us. Rowena seemed interesting to me, at first, but has become tedious to watch and not very entertaining. Again, I hope this will all be amped up so that Rowena's purpose and role will have meaning to the story and to the viewers. Crowley is amazing and I am hopeful he will be given more substance to work with and not portrayed as a mama's boy who couldn't see what was right in front of him. Season 10 was promoted as being about DEANMON but it's hard to tell if that was just promotional or real. The pacing this season and the way the episodes have been organized (or presented) don't seem logical and don't seem to carry a lot from one episode to the next save a last minute Dean does something dark just for the sake of the DEANMON story or Rowena manipulates Crowley for just a few minutes and then the scene cuts to Claire with no resolution to what Rowena was up to and no linear script to anticipate when, where and why Rowena will be back other than screen time needed to be filled. I think Season 10 has a lot of good ideas but lacks strong execution on any idea and just throws way too much at the viewer. As a viewer I am confused - am I invested in any character's story? Do I know more about Sam or Dean or their relationship because Dean was turned into a demon and what the impact of that was on the two of them? The writers have given me a little here and a little there but not enough to draw me in and make me care. There are so many wonderful opportunities for Season 10 and I hope that all will be realized with a little more time. I do get the feeling that the writers wrote Dean as a demon at the end of Season 9 for dramatic effect and then didn't really know what to do with the story in Season 10 so I feel a little short changed not allowing Dean to explore that darkness. I also would like a lot more back story on what Sam has done to save Dean or find Dean because he has a lot of making up to do for not looking for Dean for an entire year when he was in purgagtory.
I have to say it but who would think that a group of posters dealing with the show Satisfaction and issues of infidelity and materialism would end up discussing the nature of Buddhism. I would like to say one thing about Sean Jablonski's quote. If you google the quote, you will see that it is a widely accepted quote in our world. The only problem with the quote is that the translation of Buddhist philosophy doesn't always translate well as people tend to take a single quote and interpret it out of context and/or sometimes will give it more emphasis/importance than it deserves. I'm not suggesting that I understand the quote because I don't. But if you want to really understand what it means, take the time to google the quote and read it in its context. It might give you a better understanding and it might not. Personally, I think the quote is mistakenly emphasized and that it really detracts from the message of Buddhism. While I get that Sean Jablonski must have studied Buddhism to some degree and must respect it enough that he has tried to incorporate ideas into the show, I think he does a disservice to Buddhist philosophy when he uses a single quote out of context.
Bushi101I have stated a few times that at this stage of my life I am not a very religious man. My spouse and daughters are devote Catholics. Religion is very important to them and I respect that. Some of the most intense discussions I have had with my wife have been when I show her definitive proof of what she was taught to believe is actually false. Just a couple of "facts" , there was a witness(Josephus) who actually saw and described the Christ. His description, which was held as gospel until the middle ages, was a person with rather long hair parted down the middle and who stood 4' 6" tall. Not the figure on the modern crucifix. Then I showed my wife why the Christ looks as he does. That is because Pope Alexander VI (Borgia pope) commissioned pictures of the Christ. His son, Caesere Borgia was used as the model by the contemporary artists (Leonardo, Raphael, Michelangelo). If one sees the portraits of the Borgia son and those of the Christ, they are virtually identical. That is how the modern Christ likeness evolved. My wife could not dispute that since she personally saw the portraits and paintings of the masters. Religion and it's philosophies have changed. The philosophies of the Buddha and the Christ were written by men who never met or heard them. They are word of mouth tales transcribed by believers. To believe them is what we call Faith. It is to be respected. We have no real substitutes. I am writing this because all the talk of the meaning of lust and other principles of the Buddha are all interpretations from stories. There is no contemporary written history by those who actually saw him talk 2500 years ago. It is Faith and can't be debated. Jablonski uses the purported philosophy of the Buddha to lay a foundation for the emotions he wants to explore. He is doing what every good writer does, and that is to use some accepted premise and to pose variations on it. Neil is on a Buddha-like mission. He is looking for inner peace and satisfaction. That course has the potential to significantly alter his relationship with Grace for a period of time. You have commented extensively on the possibilities. I agree with almost all of your postulations. It is only a short while (7 weeks) before the cast assembles in Atlanta. We will be getting lots of tweets and spoilers from those rehearsals.
Golfingdocp, let me say that whenever I discuss any religion or religious issue in public (as well as on the open wide internet), I do so with respect to all religions. Personally, I am religious but my religious views are private and will remain so. That being said, my criticism of Sean Jablonski was not based on his faith (if it is his chosen faith) but on his taking a short quote and using it out of the context of the message. While you can't debate a person's faith, you can always discuss an interpretations of the written word (or at least you hope you can do it without angering people). BTW, I assume that your wife was referring to Josephus, the 1st century historian. He was not a contemporary of Jesus and wrote the Antiquities of the Jews around 94 AD. But his work is interesting in that it is the earliest reference to the historical Jesus outside the Gospel and other religious writings contemporary to the time. Also BTW, the story about the doctor is tragic. No one comes out a winner in that case.
What facts are available to back up a statement like "he wasn't well like" or he was "the most hated"? I actually loved the character, and I know that I'm not alone in this. Some hated Finn only after the massacre. They defined him by that one act and totally forgot about the good things he did, that he was in his heart, a good guy. It was the violence and hatred of the grounders that broke him. The Finn who slaughtered those people were their creation. But deep inside, the peace loving, morally upright Finn was still there. Otherwise, he wouldn't have taken responsibility for his actions and turned himself in, despite knowing the pain he would be subjected to. That took a great deal of courage. He was a good guy who did a bad thing. The writers really make me angry. They say that Finn had to die because of the massacre. They're the ones who wrote him commiting that horrible act in the first place, which means they wanted him to die. And it seems they killed him to prove a point, I.e., that they don't mess around; they want it to be real; that you can't sit back and say a main character won't die. TV should basically be an entertaining escape. If you make it so real that it blurs the line between it and harsh reality, how is that fun? I became actually depressed by Finn's death. I was taking great pleasure in was watching Thomas McDonell as Finn. Now that he's gone, the show is not the same. It's not as exciting as before. It's actually going to be difficult for me to watch knowing that Finn will never be there again. I don't want to be stressed out that I'm going to lose the character that I looked forward to watching on the show. I want everything that I enjoy about the show and that keeps me coming back to be there when I sit down to watch. The writers' concept of what is best for an audience shouldn't be a blanket they throw over all of their viewers and expect it to fit.
To be fair, the writers and Stephen Amell himself said he'd still be in the three episodes but in flashbacks. I would have felt more impact if they had just show Oliver being dragged and "revived" as one whole scene at the end of the episode. None of thought he'd die and its still a show about Oliver. What I was dissapointed was in how they brought him back. You all fail to see this from a Felicity's point of view. Felicity held out for as long as she could but the close call they had with Diggle and Roy, on top of Ray setting out to become the next vigilante was just too much for her to take. Keep in mind, it also hasn't been too long since Sara was murdered. If I was Felicity, I wouldn't want to loose any more friends. If anything, no offense but you all sound a bit whiny yourselves. It's Arrow, take the good along with the bad.
Please once Jack confesses to Emamanda how he feels about her let it be them. Let them go to bed together and have her realize it is the same for her.it was always him, she just felt he didn't feel the same anymore. After The faux Amanda died and all that transpired before he began to really get evolved in all that was going on with her. She has not had time to examine her real feelings. Please let Ben become a friend to both of them. He has to tangle with ex wife. Let Victoria go back to her social life. She is suffering with no family around her. Have Marqaux go to France and have her baby and run her company from there. Let her realize the real story so she can see Amanda did not do it. Yes it is a storybook ending so what. It is the least Abc can do after running this show for us in every possible way they could.
I was devastated when Jack saw Ben and Emily! I looked at the promo for the next episode and Jack confesses his feelings to Emily. I was so excited but who knows how Emily will respond??? I don't think she will instantly ditch Ben who she has just started something with for Jack? I've always wanted it to be Jack and Emily.....although I was interested where Emily and Daniel could have gone before he was killed.
© 2015 TV Fanatic
TV Fanatic Plus
Sign up for our daily newsletter to receive personalized television news for