LondonLad: "Sorry mate, can't see any theory whatsoever in what I wrote. Approximately 6-7.5 floors a second disappearing into a mass of pulverised matter was what we all saw with the pair of piss holes in the snow, one of which we keep either side of the bridge of each of our very own noses. And we saw that whether we care to recognise the significance of that fact or whether we try and hide from it."

True -- we all saw it. And true -- we saw it whether or not we know its significance (or insignificance).

Still, you haven't refuted my point that it does you no good to be arrogant about the matter.

Why don't you lay out the science and physics for us? What is the hard evidence that the towers could not have fallen the way they did unless the buildings had been properly "softened up" by planned demolition?

It should be possible to discuss science without resorting to any name-calling or rudeness. Scientists do it every day.

Wait.... was Duckie's come-hither gal a blonde at the end of "Pretty in Pink"? I can't remember now. I could have sworn she had brown hair. Somebody please help me out here.

Regarding the changed ending of "Pretty in Pink," I think they were right to change it. The implication of the original ending is that social/economic classes are better of sticking together. It would also reward Duckie's overly obsessed behavior. (I think the movie explicitly makes it clear that if he's a stalker, he's a harmless one -- there's a line of dialogue about how he sometimes rides his bike past Molly Ringwald's house at night, but never stops, because "I'm more of the ride-by type.")

The changed ending forces the characters out of their narrowly defined groups and is a slap in the face to James Spader's character. It also forces Duckie to stop being such a pout-in-your-room-listening-to-the-Smiths guy, and instead to realize there are lots of fish in the sea.

Movies with changed endings are very interesting... Sometimes the audience is wrong, but sometimes they're spot-on. The ending of "Fatal Attraction" is much better the way it is, although people really should see the original.

Amy Benfer: "Duckie gets a bland blonde who looks so much like Caroline she may as well be the same actress."

Wrong. She was a brunette.

"I don't think that she's cut out for the job."

Said by somebody who lived in the same house.

Ouch.

He won't be back at that dinner table... (Or if he is, he'd better bring a taster.)

The discomfort level was sort of enjoyable on that one. I don't have any particular fondness for Levi, other than the fact that he's a thorn closely embedded in Sarah Palin's side, but this is an example of him milking his celebrity in a likably low-key fashion. I would think Bristol Palin must find this amusing even if it makes Sarah steaming mad.

Kathy Griffith is funny to be "using" him this way -- pretty shrewd move on her part. I look forward to how she's going to use this pairing in a future stand-up routine. She's just an inherently funny woman, although at times she is almost indistinguishable from a man in drag (I don't mean that as a put-down on her looks, but as a comment on her voice and manner).

The weirdest thing about this whole clip was: Where is Larry King? They just put Kathy and Levin in King's studio and set them loose to do whatever? On the same stage where King interviews heads of state and A-list celebrities? Well -- why not. King would have been superfluous anyway, looking down, leaning into his suspenders and nervously chuckling most of the time.

One response to Judy Berman:

Berman: "...and even weighed in on Miley Cyrus' controversial performance: "She did her little thing on the pole. I thought it was a bit inappropriate for the teen awards." (A bit rich coming from the poster boy for unprotected teen sex.)"

I am sure everybody agrees it would have been equally approprite if Levi had engaged in unprotected sex at the teen awards.