Well I guess until their system is "fully understood and can have predictable outcomes", they should keep their mouths shut and stop trying to influence public policy and public behavior.
No, oddly enough, even if it's true, it's still an ad hominem. You're attacking the person instead of presenting your own argument.
Gold standard (yes, gold standard), pollution, climate change, just about any of Paul's economic policies...
Not suggesting the same solution as you do for pollution and climate change isn't "crazy". I know you'd like to think that anyone who disagrees with you is crazy, but fortunately for the rest of us, the world doesn't actually work that way. As for his financial policies, oddly enough, he has a surprising amount of endorsements from Econimics Professors and is right in line with what people like the Comptroller General of the US (the head bean counter of Washington) are saying when it comes to gov't spending, so I don't think your case for "crazy" holds any water there either. Remember, you're not just saying you disagree with him... you're saying he's "crazy". That requires proof amounting to more than just "He doesn't agree with me on this issue".
1) we were on the gold standard in the twenties 2) it didn't do a thing to prevent economic collapse in this country.
Wow... two completely unrealted facts presented in a single sentence. That sure makes your case. Oh wait... no it doesn't.:o)
Unfortunately, the gold standard isn't superman. Just being on the gold standard isn't going to save your economy if the gov't, the central bank, AND a whole country full of investors are acting like idiots all at the same time. Not to mention the fact that the depression was worsened when Roosevelt subverted the gold standard by forcing every US citizen to sell their gold at a fixed price and then raised the price of gold the next year, thus driving the value of the dollar down 41%. So what little money people had was now worth less.
Don't call me a liar, liar.
Just because you don't fully understand his position, doesn't make it true. Here's a nice clarification (@2:00) of what he means.... this is, of course, from a few months ago... not 2002.
Yes... the fed gov't pumped billions into an economy... that didn't get better (at least not permanently.. many of the "gains" made by gov't programs were lost by 1937) and they had to plunge the country into massive amounts of dept just to do so (a practice that remains to this day). WWII ended the depression. There isn't even any debate about that.
Not to mention that the economic state before the depression was not a "libertarian fantasy land". The Fed was instituted in 1913, much to the protest of libertarians. A central bank controlling the money supply and manipulating the economy (which is a NON-libertarian policy) was the #1 cause of the depression.
You have no idea what you're talking about, which just confirms MY suspicion that people who bash Ron Paul supporters usually do so based on complete ignorance of the topic at hand.
The Great Depression had NOTHING to do with lack of retirement planning or medical health care coverage (i.e. gov't social programs). No amount of Social Security or Medicaire would have stopped the Great Depression. In fact, no government handout of any kind could have stopped it, otherwise the gov't would have handed out the money the minute the depression started and it would have been over.
If you understood the market, monetary policy, and the Federal Reserve you wouldn't even have equated the Great Depression to gov't entitlement programs.
Go read his wikipedia page. He's not trying to return the Gold Standard. And people were not dying in the streets before social security. Not to mention the fact that he has repeatedly stated that all social programs would be continued for as long as needed for those who had been taught that they need to rely on the gov't for their retirement planning. Before the gov't took over and screwed everything up (social security/medicare/medicaid WILL be bankrupt in a few decades: http://youtube.com/watch?v=OS2fI2p9iVs) the private sector and charities took care of the needy and did a much better job of it.
No... it's not his plan. I've explained his *actual* plan in another reply to one of your posts, though.
"Yeah, that's Ron Paul in a nutshell"
No... that's Ron Paul in a "completely unsubstantiated ad hominem"
If you know of a specific Ron Paul policy that is "nuts" then please present it, AND provide your source for where he has said that it is his policy (since you've already falsely claimed that he wants to go back to the gold standard) and then provide evidence that the policy is such a proven failure that anyone who supports it must be "nuts".
"Simple: raise the price of gold. By devaluing the $US even further (yes, it's possible, and Ron Paul is just the guy to do it.)"
Sorry, but that's 1) complete speculation on your part and 2) entirely contrary to what Ron Paul has proposed for monetary policy.
You simply misunderstand (or are ignorant of) his position on currency. I suggest you read his wikipedia page for more information on this topic. It has several links to interviews where he explains his position on monetary policy (and it's not "going back to the gold standard", btw).
man... that was a really weak argument for the "Ron Paul is nuts" claim.
Let's break that one down...
First off, RP is not in favor of going "back to the Gold Standard". I know... you're shocked, aren't you? All of the rumors that you've heard about RP are saying that he wants to go back to the Gold Standard. But unfortunately, those rumors aren't true, so they don't prove that "Ron Paul is nuts". And since we nerds like to base our world-views on facts, and not rumors, here's the bit from RP's wikipedia page that outlines his position on this matter:
"Paul says he 'wouldn't exactly go back on the gold standard,'[123] but would push to legalize gold and silver as legal tender and remove sales taxes on them, so that gold-backed notes (or other types of hard money) and digital gold currencies[124] can compete on a level playing field with fiat Federal Reserve notes, allowing individuals a choice whether to use 'sound money' to protect their purchasing power or to continue using fiat money.[125]"
You can check out all of the supporting sources in that snippet and hear the position from RP's own mouth.
Secondly, in your hypothetical scenario, ALL four companies would be criminally liable. But even if there was some way for them to wiggle out of it, pointing out a *possible* loophole in someone's political policy is a FAR cry from proving them to be "nuts". There are plenty of loophole in todays much more regulative environmental policy. Does that make the environmentalists who support those policies "nuts"?
Here's the worst part of that article:
In May, Collin County District Attorney John Roach dropped all charges against the two dozen who were arrested, saying he had no jurisdiction in most of the cases because neither the suspects nor the decoys were in the county during the online chats. He said the remainder of the cases had to be dropped because neither police nor NBC could guarantee the chat logs were authentic and complete. So basically, all NBC accomplished was entrapping and humiliating dozens of men just to get ratings without actually puting a single one of them behind bars or in some kind of therapy. Way to go NBC!
I don't think the problem was *just* a matter of "back-story" vs. "freak of the week". I personally loved the back-story. The FOTW was fine, but it was all the intricate detail that went on behind the scenes and that you just knew was gonna rear its head any minute that kept me watching.
The problem was, the back-story got so convoluted and seemingly pointless that the show lost a lot of its appeal to hard-core fans. It basically ended up just like Alias, where there were so many odd and goofy plot twists and explanations for everything that all the suspense and mystery was taken away and replaced with the TV equivalent of SPAM. (the meat, not the email):op
Nah, I'm not involved in that project. I've just heard some good stuff about SMF. I used to use phpBB (actually, still do on my other sites), but phpBB usually requires a decent amount of manual hacking to get it to a robust state, and a lot of those features are already included in SMF. Honestly, there are some things about the SMF interface that irk me, but I guess it's a trade off.
I'm still adding categories... that's gonna take a while... suggestions are welcome. Who knows if it'll actually work... meh... it'll probably be dead in a couple of months, but at least it gave me something to do at work today.:o)
It is? Again, do you personally know people going through tragedy because their provider screwed them? I don't. I've gotten covered for every thing I've ever needed (numerous tests, surgeries, chronic conditions, you name it). I don't personally know anyone who's had that kind of problem.
So what does that mean? Does that mean "fuck everyone else" (as the AC so eloquently put it)? No... it means fix the *individual* problems. Find out why those specific people are having that specific problem and fix it. Don't tell me that the ENTIRE country has to have their taxes raised and have the quality of their health care coverage lowered because of these individual cases.
And if that solution can come in a form that benefits *everyone*, then yeah... make it available to the whole country. But don't screw millions to help millions... you're just shifting the problem to a new location.
btw, it's not a guarantee that companies won't have to pay as much or more than they currently do for their employees. Many of the proposed health plans require employers to provide health care or else pay into the gov't plan.
"One provision of the Edwards proposal certain to draw fire is a requirement that companies provide health insurance for all workers or pay 6 percent of their payrolls into a government fund to buy insurance for them. This type of "play or pay" program was an element of former President Bill Clinton's failed 1994 health care plan that was shaped in large part by Mrs. Clinton."
Like I said... there are all kinds of sides that need to be presented.
I'm not "leaving out important facts"... I can only touch on so many points in a/. post. Yeah, there are more things to keep in mind... there always are. I didn't claim to present the whole argument... just a few samples of the different ways you *can* look at it.
So then MM should be talking about fixing the health care plans of the NYPD and NYFD... not the entire freaking country. Instead of using selective, anecdotal evidence to make a *national* case, he should be trying to fix the individual problems (i.e. the lousy health care that cops and firemen get). See, I get very good health care for cheap through my company. My wife gets good coverage for FREE through her company. Neither of us are complaining (and neither are any of my friends or family). I don't need MM to come in and use the problems of a particular set of individuals as a means to enact a social system that will both cost me more and lessen the quality of my coverage.
Before school starts back up? When is that? August? September? We're still talking about at least a couple of months for a test that could save your life.
I noticed a lump on my side a few months back. I called a friend who is a surgeon and asked his advice. He said to get it checked out, because it's most likely a fatty deposit, but there's always that 1% chance that it's cancerous. That 1% chance could kill me, and quick, so I'd like to know NOW... not in a couple of months, or 6 months, or any amount of months. So I went to the doctor (that week), got a scan (the next day), and had them remove the deposit (a couple of weeks later).
WATYF
My wife gets good coverage through her work for free. I get my coverage through my work for a very low cost. I fail to see how I'd get any socialized plan for less than what I'm paying now.
And don't glamorize the Canadian health care system too much... when I lived there, my brother was on a waiting list for over 9 months to get a simple surgery.
But you're assuming that these topics are simple, kindergarten, black-and-white issues. It's like you're saying, "A journalist would never present 2+2=4 AND 2+2=5 in the same light." Well duh... of course he wouldn't. But this isn't kindergarten, and these questions don't have easy answers. That's why it's the journalists job to present ALL of the facts (even the ones that don't support his personal opinion) and let the viewer draw their own conclusion.
Take the topic of enacting socialized medicine in the US. Does it suck that so many people don't have health care? I think so. Would it suck if the gov't took more of my money to pay for someone else to have an operation? I think so. Do people get into situations sometimes where they need help (i.e. free medical care). I think so. Will people take advantage of the system by needlessly going to the doctor all of the time just because they know it's going to be free? I think so. Will it be a benefit to the millions of Americans who have no health care coverage? I think so. Will it be a detriment to the other millions of Americans who already have quality health care at a low cost through their employers or other means? I think so. Are there positives? Of course. Are there negatives? Of course. And the journalist should present all of them.
You can't just focus on the side that makes your case look good... you can't just parade the "lost causes" in front of the camera and say, "Socialized medicine will fix this". You have to point out the things that it will break as well. For every person who will go from getting no coverage to getting some coverage, you have to point out the people who will go from getting fast, quality coverage to getting slow, lesser quality coverage (I should know... I'm Canadian by birth, and my brother was on a waiting list for over 9 months for a simple operation... the last surgery I needed --now that I'm in the US-- required about a two week wait). For every person who can't afford coverage and will get it for free, you'll have to point out all of the people who _can_ afford it and are getting it for a very good price, who will end up losing more money in taxes than what it costs them right now (My wife, for example, gets coverage through her work for free... I get it for a very low cost through my work... if our taxes went up to pay for this, we'd both end up on the losing-side --financially and in the quality of the coverage).
The most important thing to remember in this debate is that you're talking about forcing the entire nation into doing something, whether they agree with it or not. The same goes for any of these other major debates. And when you're talking about doing something like that, you can't play games with the "facts". We need to hear it all.
Yeah, I don't think Heroes has jumped the shark either. Sure, the finale wasn't as good as it could have been, but I don't see that as a reason to throw in the towel.
As for Lost, I totally disagree about it being "Lost". I've hung in there with a *lot* of serial dramas (X-Files, Alias, etc), and kept watching to the end, and it's always pretty clear when the series starts to tank. I haven't seen any of those signs from Lost. Yeah, it's hard to keep up with, but they're surprisingly good at keeping continuity between the episodes (and even seasons) and they're still keeping you wondering what's going on and what's gonna happen next, even though they've revealed so much up to this point.
I don't know how anyone could have watched the Lost finale and thought that the show has tanked. That was a seriously good two hours of TV.
Slashdot Mirror
Well I guess until their system is "fully understood and can have predictable outcomes", they should keep their mouths shut and stop trying to influence public policy and public behavior.
WATYF
I'll see your speech before Congress in 2002 and raise you several interviews from the last few months that clarify his current position.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKQmYfY3R7c
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXfDHXpP87o
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZsZ0_OLer4
It's not an ad hominem if it's true.
:o)
No, oddly enough, even if it's true, it's still an ad hominem. You're attacking the person instead of presenting your own argument.
Gold standard (yes, gold standard), pollution, climate change, just about any of Paul's economic policies...
Not suggesting the same solution as you do for pollution and climate change isn't "crazy". I know you'd like to think that anyone who disagrees with you is crazy, but fortunately for the rest of us, the world doesn't actually work that way. As for his financial policies, oddly enough, he has a surprising amount of endorsements from Econimics Professors and is right in line with what people like the Comptroller General of the US (the head bean counter of Washington) are saying when it comes to gov't spending, so I don't think your case for "crazy" holds any water there either. Remember, you're not just saying you disagree with him... you're saying he's "crazy". That requires proof amounting to more than just "He doesn't agree with me on this issue".
1) we were on the gold standard in the twenties 2) it didn't do a thing to prevent economic collapse in this country.
Wow... two completely unrealted facts presented in a single sentence. That sure makes your case. Oh wait... no it doesn't.
Unfortunately, the gold standard isn't superman. Just being on the gold standard isn't going to save your economy if the gov't, the central bank, AND a whole country full of investors are acting like idiots all at the same time. Not to mention the fact that the depression was worsened when Roosevelt subverted the gold standard by forcing every US citizen to sell their gold at a fixed price and then raised the price of gold the next year, thus driving the value of the dollar down 41%. So what little money people had was now worth less.
Don't call me a liar, liar.
Just because you don't fully understand his position, doesn't make it true. Here's a nice clarification (@2:00) of what he means.... this is, of course, from a few months ago... not 2002.
Yes... the fed gov't pumped billions into an economy... that didn't get better (at least not permanently.. many of the "gains" made by gov't programs were lost by 1937) and they had to plunge the country into massive amounts of dept just to do so (a practice that remains to this day). WWII ended the depression. There isn't even any debate about that.
Not to mention that the economic state before the depression was not a "libertarian fantasy land". The Fed was instituted in 1913, much to the protest of libertarians. A central bank controlling the money supply and manipulating the economy (which is a NON-libertarian policy) was the #1 cause of the depression.
WATYF
You have no idea what you're talking about, which just confirms MY suspicion that people who bash Ron Paul supporters usually do so based on complete ignorance of the topic at hand.
The Great Depression had NOTHING to do with lack of retirement planning or medical health care coverage (i.e. gov't social programs). No amount of Social Security or Medicaire would have stopped the Great Depression. In fact, no government handout of any kind could have stopped it, otherwise the gov't would have handed out the money the minute the depression started and it would have been over.
If you understood the market, monetary policy, and the Federal Reserve you wouldn't even have equated the Great Depression to gov't entitlement programs.
WATYF
Go read his wikipedia page. He's not trying to return the Gold Standard. And people were not dying in the streets before social security. Not to mention the fact that he has repeatedly stated that all social programs would be continued for as long as needed for those who had been taught that they need to rely on the gov't for their retirement planning. Before the gov't took over and screwed everything up (social security/medicare/medicaid WILL be bankrupt in a few decades: http://youtube.com/watch?v=OS2fI2p9iVs) the private sector and charities took care of the needy and did a much better job of it.
WATYF
"Maybe that's his plan"
No... it's not his plan. I've explained his *actual* plan in another reply to one of your posts, though.
"Yeah, that's Ron Paul in a nutshell"
No... that's Ron Paul in a "completely unsubstantiated ad hominem"
If you know of a specific Ron Paul policy that is "nuts" then please present it, AND provide your source for where he has said that it is his policy (since you've already falsely claimed that he wants to go back to the gold standard) and then provide evidence that the policy is such a proven failure that anyone who supports it must be "nuts".
WATYF
"Simple: raise the price of gold. By devaluing the $US even further (yes, it's possible, and Ron Paul is just the guy to do it.)"
Sorry, but that's 1) complete speculation on your part and 2) entirely contrary to what Ron Paul has proposed for monetary policy.
You simply misunderstand (or are ignorant of) his position on currency. I suggest you read his wikipedia page for more information on this topic. It has several links to interviews where he explains his position on monetary policy (and it's not "going back to the gold standard", btw).
WATYF
man... that was a really weak argument for the "Ron Paul is nuts" claim.
Let's break that one down...
First off, RP is not in favor of going "back to the Gold Standard". I know... you're shocked, aren't you? All of the rumors that you've heard about RP are saying that he wants to go back to the Gold Standard. But unfortunately, those rumors aren't true, so they don't prove that "Ron Paul is nuts". And since we nerds like to base our world-views on facts, and not rumors, here's the bit from RP's wikipedia page that outlines his position on this matter:
"Paul says he 'wouldn't exactly go back on the gold standard,'[123] but would push to legalize gold and silver as legal tender and remove sales taxes on them, so that gold-backed notes (or other types of hard money) and digital gold currencies[124] can compete on a level playing field with fiat Federal Reserve notes, allowing individuals a choice whether to use 'sound money' to protect their purchasing power or to continue using fiat money.[125]"
You can check out all of the supporting sources in that snippet and hear the position from RP's own mouth.
Secondly, in your hypothetical scenario, ALL four companies would be criminally liable. But even if there was some way for them to wiggle out of it, pointing out a *possible* loophole in someone's political policy is a FAR cry from proving them to be "nuts". There are plenty of loophole in todays much more regulative environmental policy. Does that make the environmentalists who support those policies "nuts"?
WATYF
I don't think the problem was *just* a matter of "back-story" vs. "freak of the week". I personally loved the back-story. The FOTW was fine, but it was all the intricate detail that went on behind the scenes and that you just knew was gonna rear its head any minute that kept me watching.
:op
The problem was, the back-story got so convoluted and seemingly pointless that the show lost a lot of its appeal to hard-core fans. It basically ended up just like Alias, where there were so many odd and goofy plot twists and explanations for everything that all the suspense and mystery was taken away and replaced with the TV equivalent of SPAM. (the meat, not the email)
Nah, I'm not involved in that project. I've just heard some good stuff about SMF. I used to use phpBB (actually, still do on my other sites), but phpBB usually requires a decent amount of manual hacking to get it to a robust state, and a lot of those features are already included in SMF. Honestly, there are some things about the SMF interface that irk me, but I guess it's a trade off.
WATYF
OK. I'll add a forum for pimping your own stuff. I'll try to keep it separate from the other stuff, though.
WATYF
OK. I'll bite. I was bored today, so I went ahead and made one... a forum about how to find good forums for a particular topic.
:o)
http://www.theforumsforum.com/
I'm still adding categories... that's gonna take a while... suggestions are welcome. Who knows if it'll actually work... meh... it'll probably be dead in a couple of months, but at least it gave me something to do at work today.
Oh, come on! Look, if he was dying, he wouldn't bother to type 'aaaaarrrggh'... He'd just say it!
Actually, according to the guy who found most of the bugs (http://erratasec.blogspot.com/2007/06/niiiice.htm l), it does affect OS X.
It is? Again, do you personally know people going through tragedy because their provider screwed them? I don't. I've gotten covered for every thing I've ever needed (numerous tests, surgeries, chronic conditions, you name it). I don't personally know anyone who's had that kind of problem.
So what does that mean? Does that mean "fuck everyone else" (as the AC so eloquently put it)? No... it means fix the *individual* problems. Find out why those specific people are having that specific problem and fix it. Don't tell me that the ENTIRE country has to have their taxes raised and have the quality of their health care coverage lowered because of these individual cases.
And if that solution can come in a form that benefits *everyone*, then yeah... make it available to the whole country. But don't screw millions to help millions... you're just shifting the problem to a new location.
Yeah, because that was my point. [/sarcasm]
Take your self-righteous judgment somewhere else.
btw, it's not a guarantee that companies won't have to pay as much or more than they currently do for their employees. Many of the proposed health plans require employers to provide health care or else pay into the gov't plan.
d wards.html?ex=1182312000&en=a9c10ee5d734a607&ei=50 70
From this article: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/06/us/politics/06e
"One provision of the Edwards proposal certain to draw fire is a requirement that companies provide health insurance for all workers or pay 6 percent of their payrolls into a government fund to buy insurance for them. This type of "play or pay" program was an element of former President Bill Clinton's failed 1994 health care plan that was shaped in large part by Mrs. Clinton."
Like I said... there are all kinds of sides that need to be presented.
I'm not "leaving out important facts"... I can only touch on so many points in a /. post. Yeah, there are more things to keep in mind... there always are. I didn't claim to present the whole argument... just a few samples of the different ways you *can* look at it.
WATYF
So then MM should be talking about fixing the health care plans of the NYPD and NYFD... not the entire freaking country. Instead of using selective, anecdotal evidence to make a *national* case, he should be trying to fix the individual problems (i.e. the lousy health care that cops and firemen get). See, I get very good health care for cheap through my company. My wife gets good coverage for FREE through her company. Neither of us are complaining (and neither are any of my friends or family). I don't need MM to come in and use the problems of a particular set of individuals as a means to enact a social system that will both cost me more and lessen the quality of my coverage.
WATYF
Before school starts back up? When is that? August? September? We're still talking about at least a couple of months for a test that could save your life. I noticed a lump on my side a few months back. I called a friend who is a surgeon and asked his advice. He said to get it checked out, because it's most likely a fatty deposit, but there's always that 1% chance that it's cancerous. That 1% chance could kill me, and quick, so I'd like to know NOW... not in a couple of months, or 6 months, or any amount of months. So I went to the doctor (that week), got a scan (the next day), and had them remove the deposit (a couple of weeks later). WATYF
Half of what who's paying?
My wife gets good coverage through her work for free. I get my coverage through my work for a very low cost. I fail to see how I'd get any socialized plan for less than what I'm paying now.
And don't glamorize the Canadian health care system too much... when I lived there, my brother was on a waiting list for over 9 months to get a simple surgery.
WATYF
But you're assuming that these topics are simple, kindergarten, black-and-white issues. It's like you're saying, "A journalist would never present 2+2=4 AND 2+2=5 in the same light." Well duh... of course he wouldn't. But this isn't kindergarten, and these questions don't have easy answers. That's why it's the journalists job to present ALL of the facts (even the ones that don't support his personal opinion) and let the viewer draw their own conclusion.
Take the topic of enacting socialized medicine in the US. Does it suck that so many people don't have health care? I think so. Would it suck if the gov't took more of my money to pay for someone else to have an operation? I think so. Do people get into situations sometimes where they need help (i.e. free medical care). I think so. Will people take advantage of the system by needlessly going to the doctor all of the time just because they know it's going to be free? I think so. Will it be a benefit to the millions of Americans who have no health care coverage? I think so. Will it be a detriment to the other millions of Americans who already have quality health care at a low cost through their employers or other means? I think so. Are there positives? Of course. Are there negatives? Of course. And the journalist should present all of them.
You can't just focus on the side that makes your case look good... you can't just parade the "lost causes" in front of the camera and say, "Socialized medicine will fix this". You have to point out the things that it will break as well. For every person who will go from getting no coverage to getting some coverage, you have to point out the people who will go from getting fast, quality coverage to getting slow, lesser quality coverage (I should know... I'm Canadian by birth, and my brother was on a waiting list for over 9 months for a simple operation... the last surgery I needed --now that I'm in the US-- required about a two week wait). For every person who can't afford coverage and will get it for free, you'll have to point out all of the people who _can_ afford it and are getting it for a very good price, who will end up losing more money in taxes than what it costs them right now (My wife, for example, gets coverage through her work for free... I get it for a very low cost through my work... if our taxes went up to pay for this, we'd both end up on the losing-side --financially and in the quality of the coverage).
The most important thing to remember in this debate is that you're talking about forcing the entire nation into doing something, whether they agree with it or not. The same goes for any of these other major debates. And when you're talking about doing something like that, you can't play games with the "facts". We need to hear it all.
WATYF
Yeah, I don't think Heroes has jumped the shark either. Sure, the finale wasn't as good as it could have been, but I don't see that as a reason to throw in the towel.
As for Lost, I totally disagree about it being "Lost". I've hung in there with a *lot* of serial dramas (X-Files, Alias, etc), and kept watching to the end, and it's always pretty clear when the series starts to tank. I haven't seen any of those signs from Lost. Yeah, it's hard to keep up with, but they're surprisingly good at keeping continuity between the episodes (and even seasons) and they're still keeping you wondering what's going on and what's gonna happen next, even though they've revealed so much up to this point.
I don't know how anyone could have watched the Lost finale and thought that the show has tanked. That was a seriously good two hours of TV.
WATYF