Best line of the show was Michael new nickname for Oscar: "Oscar Meyer Wiener-Lover"

That's pretty bold writing for a guy named "BJ."

I thought the better joke was the reference to his "condition."

You're talking about the thread in general, and as I wrote in my original post, I don't object to the kind of criticism you're talking about. But I (and Matto was referencing my post) was talking about a poster who decided nearly a year and a half ago that he doesn't like the show anymore, yet every week he continues to watch it and then post here about how awful it is. That's just monotonous thread crapping.

The blonde in the coffee shop was absolutely stunning

[QUOTE=pridesticks06]tag outro QUOTE]

whats tag outro mean?

Loved Toby's look when Michael told the office that he wanted to have a family and to do that, he needed to get laid.

Amen and QFT...

Speaking for myself, I appreciate that people love the show. I have been a huge fan from the first season/second episode and have regularly posted (mostly positive) observations of the show on a nearly weekly basis since. But by the same token, when the show is IMO weak or going in a negative direction, I also post my honest criticism, because that is what critical thinking and having a legitimate aesthetic sensibility is all about.

When someone posts that they loved a particular joke or episode that I didn't care for, you certainly won't see me posting complaints about someone else's positive opinion or telling them to take their contrary view and stick it, because that is what legitimate intellectual discourse is most assuredly NOT about.

And I don't mean to exclusively direct this at the weekly The Office thread, because I see the same baloney in other threads at DVD Talk, as well as many other web forums. Namely, the moment someone posts an opinion that diverges from the consensus, everybody else jumps on it as a "threadcrap." While instances of threadcrapping and trolling certainly occur from time to time, a dissenting opinion (even a consistent one) does not constitute such. If someone doesn't like something pertinent to a particular topic, there is nothing wrong with posting that opinion in an intellectually honest way.

Salty, it isn't just Office threads this member does this in. He does it for LOST and other shows as well. On the whole, he seems to enjoy popping in threads, doing a threadcrap, and moving onto the next one.

If ever a IGNORE MEMBER function was warranted, this is the exact type of situation it was created for.

This was much more like the Office of old. Felt Season 2 in tone. Really liked this ep.

How is that different than praising a show week after week? It certainly doesn't fall under thread crapping. It must seem relentless to you, but as much as you dislike people who constantly criticize, I feel the same about fans. Those blind loyal subjects who genuflect everytime Joss Whedon's name is mentioned. To me being a fan of something is for children who read Tiger Beat (Is that still around?) .

I agree completely. Although I do wish they'd use the supporting cast more than they have been lately, this episode was an improvement because it was classic Michael: Romantic expectations that are way too high, and completely socially inept.

Rather than focusing so much on Michael and Dwigt and Jim and Pam, I'm ready for an episode that gets everybody involved. I need more Toby, especially.

All well and good, but I disagreed with your assertion that Jim and Pam ending up together and being "normal" would be typical sitcom fare. And I wasn't the only one. I believe you are factually incorrect here.

[QUOTE=Jacoby Ellsbury]The final scene before the credits.

Jenna Fischer? :drool:

My jaw dropped when Jim revealed that he had bought the ring a week after he and Pam started dating. I got faked out by the fake proposal at the end.

The meeting of the heads of the Five Families was hilarious. Was there oranges anywhere in the scene? :)

Creed and Stanley only got one line, but they made it worthwhile. I'm sure if Stanley dug deep enough, he could find someone to give Michael their number.

I don't want to know what Creed needs 3 chairs for......

"oh really? what's her name, burger king?"

Say what you want about the episode, but I still think this was brilliant:

My comments weren't directed toward you, but rather to the posters who were bitching about people posting negative reviews/comments about the show. If you stated a polite difference of opinion, I have no problem with that.

However to clarify, if you re-read my second post in this thread, you will see I was objecting to the possibility of NBC using the Pam/Jim plotline as a predictable (and likely sappy) promo bump for the show, not to Pam and Jim "ending up together." In my opinion, such syrupy "very special episode" stuff A) has been done to death for other quasi-romantic subplots in every TV show for the last 25 years, and B) is way too lame a move for what has been a generally clever and iconoclastic show like The Office.

And since that is only my opinion and not a statement of fact, I'm not sure how I can be factually incorrect, unless you somehow believe I'm inaccurately assessing my own opinion.

I thought you were saying that getting Jim and Pam together and keeping them together relatively drama-free was a "common" sitcom theme.

I do not believe that is correct. And I'm sure if they do NBC will play it up, but the marketing people are separate from the Office people, so I don't care what they do. I don't watch commercials anyway.

Just watched it. That was a killer episode! I instantly thought of the UK series with the Michael/landlord date.

I know there's haters out there, but I think that Jim and Pam are the heart of this show and I love what the writers have done thus far with their relationship. I'm so glad they aren't going the Ross/Rachel route that's been done so many times in so many sitcoms before. God forbid there should be a couple on TV that's actually right for each other and they don't fuck it up because of their own stupid actions.

The fake-out towards the end totally got me, too.

Not "people." One person. There's a difference.

I loved it.

"you just ruined it."

Totally classic Office.
Wait, that might be threadcapping. I really enjoyed the old school Michael this ep. He was desperate and pathetic, borderline heartless, but not over the top crazy-driving into a lake Michael.

I popped when Jim dropped to his knee at the end but love even more that it was a fake out.

Yeah, I think the driving into the lake was one of the series' low points. I'm hoping the show reins Michael's antics in.

Hey...that sounds suspiciously like a criticism. You know that's not what this thread is for!

The other thing I love about this show are the little things you don't catch the first time around.

Andy dancing in the street with green socks got me as well as when michael and dwigt were walking in the cemetary, diwgt starts hopping on gravestones.

And just for clarification, I have no problem with people disliking an episode.

The thing I was getting at which Salty was getting at too is that you always have one or two people who come in and just say that the show is horrible anymore and hasn't been good "Since the first season!" To which I respond, watch something else then. There is a difference between criticism and whining.

Firstly, motherfuck my local NBC affiliate for pre-empting this episode for continuing coverage of a hailstorm that never happened.
Secondly; "I guess you could say she died of...blunt force trauma and blood loss." Such an easy joke and yet so funny.