Stuffed Cat

LOL, yeah. I was thinking of suggesting she smokes a joint / drops an E, and chills out a bit, but I somehow feel this advice might not be appreciated.

No, I'm not "suggesting" it, I'm saying it. No city I'm aware of is "overrun with zombie drug users". Yes, there are serious issues with excessive drug use in many places, and probably more so in the West because of things like culture and disposable income, but the term 'overrun' suggests vast, uncontrollable numbers, as in 'the kitchen was overrun by cockroaches'. But whilst absolute numbers are high, in percentage terms no way could it be construed as 'overrun' by anyone rational. And of that number of drug users, most are not zombies, or even addicts, just like not all drinkers of alcohol are alcoholics.

It's NOT the job of prosecutors to demand harsh penalties. It's their job to seek penalties they feel are appropriate for the crime committed. That's why I'm appalled ... that they would think a four-year sentence appropriate for someone having done something that has effectively harmed no-one but themselves. That's not being 'naive', it's being compassionate.

And most of the commenters here are concerned not just with the inappropriateness of the sentence demanded, but with the disparity between what is being asked for this crime, and for what has historically been handed down for crimes which most people would consider far more serious.

I suggest that if anyone warrants the comment "don't know what you're talking about", it's you. US / Western European city "streets are overrun with zombie drug users"? I was going to use the term 'hyperbole', but no. Hyperbole would be if there was even the semblance of what you claim that you're exaggerating, but there isn't. it's just plain wrong.

The terms 'requesting' and 'demanding' mean pretty much the same thing. They just reflect the manner in which something is asked for. As the opening sentence in this article starts "The prosecution has demanded...", it's not unreasonable for people to use that term in their comments.

Why do you assume people don't understand that this 'request' was simply one made by the prosecutors, not a sentence handed down by the judge? I'm appalled that they would ask for it. True, I'd be even more appalled if that's what is given as a sentence, but that doesn't change my reaction to the fact that it was asked for.

Could someone living in SK please stalk the prosecutors and when they, say, park somewhere they shouldn't, demand that their car be confiscated, they're fined a billion won, and serve 18 months in a maximum-security facility?

Totally agree! Especially hope other viewers, and more importantly commenters, take note of how hurtful and demoralising negative online comments can be to the real people they're talking about. Some of the dumb, needless, online comments featured in this show reminded me so much of .... oh .... which website was it?

I've laughed more in the first twenty-odd minute episode of this than the whole of the last two series of alleged comedies I've watched. Love it!

Like I said to Tom, once you know, you know ... and it's obvious, but that history isn't necessarily known to non-Koreans on the opposite side of the world. In the UK we had (still have?) the same thing. The 'ITV Drama Awards' were "ITV Drama" awards, not ITV "Drama Awards" but there are many internationally known awards where it's the sponsor's or founder's name in the title, not a delimiter as to who is elligible to be involved, so I don't believe it's either reasonable or safe to make that assumption. And even when there are limitations, they don't always work exactly as you'd think. For example, I've often wondered how come the 'EUROvision Song Contest' has been won by Israel four times,

LOL ... OK, that's new information to me. I still don't think that makes the production company homophobic, just desperate for a hit. Also, they have someone amazingly stupid in their PR department. Over the course of these posts. I've got to halfway through episode six, and there has been nothing so far that would have seemed better, or more 'right', if there had been a romantic element between the two male leads. Indeed, as one of them is supposed to actually be a middle-aged man in a younger guy's body, if there had been that would actually seem a bit creepy!

Let's go back to basics, shall we? Exactly how is this show homophobic?

Of course homophobia is a big deal. GENUINE homophobia I mean, not the trumped up nonsense people are spouting here to try to sound like they're so cool. There was a really great part in Lord of the Rings about trolls that was totally left out of the films. Was that "censorship" or "trollphobia"?There was a huge amount of the written material in the 'Harry Potter' books which never made it to the screen. Was that because of anti-wizard censorship? Or was it, perhaps, that there was a limited amount of time available to tell the main story, and the parts omitted weren't hugely relevant in the scheme of things?

I'm not tryin g to impress anyone, nor acting like homophobia isn't a big deal. I'm saying that just because the BL element that was in the original has been left out, that doesn't ipso facto make it homophobic.

If you're genuinely that concerned about homophobia stop crying 'wolf' to make yourself feel good and go protest outside the embassy of one of the countries where just being gay will get you imprisonment or even a death sentence.

I'm not surprised it's ranking so well. I've not caught up with all the aired episodes yet, but it's a great premise, well made, well acted, and I'm enjoying it immensely. Fond though I am of many of the Thai BLs I've watched, as a rule they're not that well polished and a little formulaic.

Now, about this "Homophobia" comment many are throwing around. Do any of you even know what it means? I mean REALLY know? Are any of you even gay?

And to save you the trouble of asking, yes, I am, and no, I don't find the ommission of a BL plot in this the least bit offensive, even if that element was there in the original manga.

You're not slowing down, are you? Just watched a drama and you weren't in it. :-( Missed you loads. Happy birthday :-)

Why do they have to end each episode on such a compelling cliff-hanger? I SERIOUSLY need to get some sleep!

Fair comment about the number of choices allowed, and I agree with the sentiment. Most lists end up being a vote about who most people think is the best-looking, regardless of what the vote is supposed to be about. There are quite a few actors out there who I wouldn't particularly want to go on a date with, but who I'm always delighted to see on a cast list because I know I'm in for a treat, watching them perform in the scenes they're in.

I understand what you're saying, but I actually considered limiting it to one! There can only be one BEST actor. Sure, there can be one who is best in a comedic role, whilst someone different plays an action hero the best, and yet another who is good in romantic roles. Many of these lists seem to let you add a hundred. It ceases to be 'Best', or even 'Good' and becomes "Yeah, I've seen him / her in stuff and quite like them."

It might be a hard choice to make, but in the end most people could say "OK, if I could only watch one of them in something, it would be THAT one." Admittedly, though, the choice might be different depending on what mood you're in, who you've most recently watched, etc.

Hehe! I love the question mark, suggesting not everyone might think being good at PR is a good thing. But, yeah, in this case I genuinely meant it as a compliment.

LOL. Yeah, OK, your ending is better than mine. Have you considered a career in marketing or Public Relations?

I have a cunning plan. Let's start a rumour that the mean, black-hearted asteroid took drugs three or four million years ago. There will be an uproar, with righteous, clean-living, Koreans demanding that such scurrilous behaviour for any reason should never be forgiven, and demand that the asteroid not be included in this show. Netflix will cave, obviously, edit out the asteroid, and .... voila! The Earth is saved.

I'm impressed that you are able to know with certainty what I have and have not considered before commenting, and can analyse my persona and beliefs, just from what is written, about things I haven't even mentioned.

Thirteen people had agreed with, or at least 'liked', my comment before you replied, which suggests I'm not alone in my opinion. Since then, one more has. I notice that no-one has indicated support for your comment, or your spurious assessment of my reasoning, character or motivation, by 'liking' yours.

When do you become a teenager? I might add a diary note to unblock you when you've grown up a bit.

Thank you for your inciteful, well argued, and thoroughly considered reply to my suggestion. I'm particularly interested in your interpretation of MY view being narrow, which is 'let people choose for themselves who and what they want to watch'. I've inferred from your comment that you're in the 'I don't approve, so no-one else should be allowed to' camp which, of course, isn't narrow-minded at all.