Ah, I didn't realize that!

You should check the show out. It's pretty good. But then I found it ran aground in its own justification. There was some "we con but we don't steal" and then by season 2 I swear they were stealing too. They hemmed themselves in.

People who draw too tight comparisons with Leverage weren't paying that much attention. Mission Impossible is a much better Leverage matchup, IMO.

How to remember and deal with people's names.

Do you agree with the assertion:

A person's own name is the single most important word to him/her; it is intimately tied to his/her identity as an individual.

I do, with respect to myself, but I think I may be unduly prejudiced on that front.

And thank you, friggin' "Beezus and Ramona" for making me want to call the creator of Maverick "Henry Huggins" instead of "Roy". That didn't make me feel insane or anything. Except I probably still am, because I have gone on and on about this and nobody cares at all.

What about the A-Team?

On names and Dukes of Hazzard, I was creeped out when I worked at the after school place, and kids there sometimes called me Uncle Jesse, but it wasn't a Hazzard reference -- it was Full House by then.

Well highly imperfect memory here. But I would swear some of the plots focused around looking for Uncle Jesse's still which actually existed.

Awww... I was all excited about having a Dukes of Hazard kerfuffle, but then it just petered out....

You should check the show out. It's pretty good.

It's on my radar since Lila from Dexter is/was in it.

A person's own name is the single most important word to him/her; it is intimately tied to his/her identity as an individual.

I don't know. I don't really like my name, but it certainly has power over me. If someone begins by using my name, it means that whatever follows is probably important and also probably bad because why else would it be extra necessary for me to pay attention.

What about the A-Team?

Pretty sure they were only doing things for other people's benefit. Was it ever considered how they sustained themselves?

Now, the Sopranos were out and out criminals who took advantage of good people and individuals. The Winchesters defraud big businesses and perform small-scale hustles against people we're not supposed to feel bad for, because they were gambling anyway.

I don't watch Weeds or Breaking Bad, but the theory holds that they're consensual type crimes (oh! Hung and Diary of a Call Girl or whatever also count in this category).

In The Shield, were there innocent individual victims? But we weren't supposed to be loving on the bad cops, were we?

In The Shield, were there innocent individual victims?

Yes. And a lot of innocent bystanders.

A person's own name is the single most important word to him/her; it is intimately tied to his/her identity as an individual.

My gut reaction is to say "no" but I'm trying to think of what word would be more important and can't think of any. But then I think it's kinda' silly to try to reduce one's identity to a single word - I mean, no single word is gonna match my identity, except possibly my name, but so what?

Pretty sure they were only doing things for other people's benefit. Was it ever considered how they sustained themselves?

Yeah, I don't know. They were generally on the run, though. All I really remember about the A-Team was having to break Hannibal out of the big house, since that's how we talked about getting my grandfather from the nursing home for the day...

And Murdoch from the mental hospital...I watched way too much of that show at one time.