> I can understand the practice of talking about things you haven't read
> or seen - as a lot of people have said, learning that trick is one of
> the great benefits of an Ivy League education. But actually admitting
> to and defending the practice is a novelty to me. You learn something
> new every day.
What's shameful is _denying_ the practice, pretending to information or experience one does not have. Anyone who only depends on direct experience or knowledge to guide their actions isn't going to get a lot done. On _M*A*S*H_, I believe they called this sort of activity triage.
Based on the second-hand criticism I've read of the series, I don't care to watch it. I have a very low tolerance level for pretend violence (aside from Chuck Jones et al), and I'm pretty picky what of it I let into my brain. _Lear_, yes; _Macbeth_, no.
Having been a critic myself, I know to be wary of negative reviews and less so of positive ones, so I understand I may be wrong here--but the stakes are rather low (what television I watch)...almost abstract, in that I don't have cable and hope never to have cable. (It's hard enough getting _Sesame Street_ on and off without showing Quincy the McCommercials.)
All the best,
John A