Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 1 (click to see context) from:
* AlternativeCharacterInterpretation: Dr Knight doesn't seem like that great of a psychiatrist. She's rather rude, dismissive, and argumentative with her patient. Let's imagine for a moment that Case 63 actually ''was'' a delusional man: Would her treatment of him have been appropriate? Is she not a very good psychiatrist across the board? Or is her treatment of Case 63 fairly unique and singular, because she thinks he's lying, and because he rattles her?
to:
* AlternativeCharacterInterpretation: Dr Knight doesn't seem like that great of a psychiatrist. She's rather rude, dismissive, and argumentative with her patient. Let's imagine for a moment that Case 63 actually ''was'' a delusional man: Would her treatment of him have been appropriate? The question, then: Is she not a very good psychiatrist across the board? Or is her treatment of Case 63 fairly unique and singular, because she thinks he's lying, and because he rattles her?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* HilariousInHindsight: Peter describes something very close to the United States Congress hearings on [=UFOs=].
-->'''Peter:''' Irrefutable proof that we are not alone in the universe--although we already did know that from declassified files the Pentagon released.\\
'''Eliza:''' Excuse me, when was this?\\
'''Peter:''' In, uh, 20--actually next year, actually. 2023.\\
'''Eliza:''' Next year.\\
'''Peter:''' Oh yes. But--well, it turns out that, y'know, a few boring documents confirming what conspiracy theorists have been yelling about for years didn't exactly turn the world upside down.
-->'''Peter:''' Irrefutable proof that we are not alone in the universe--although we already did know that from declassified files the Pentagon released.\\
'''Eliza:''' Excuse me, when was this?\\
'''Peter:''' In, uh, 20--actually next year, actually. 2023.\\
'''Eliza:''' Next year.\\
'''Peter:''' Oh yes. But--well, it turns out that, y'know, a few boring documents confirming what conspiracy theorists have been yelling about for years didn't exactly turn the world upside down.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 1 (click to see context) from:
* AlternativeCharacterInterpretation: Dr Knight doesn't seem like that great of a psychiatrist. Let's imagine for a moment that Case 63 actually ''was'' a delusional man: Would her treatment of him have been appropriate? She's rather rude, dismissive, and argumentative with her patient. Is she not a very good psychiatrist across the board? Or is her treatment of Case 63 fairly unique and singular, because she thinks he's lying, and because he rattles her?
to:
* AlternativeCharacterInterpretation: Dr Knight doesn't seem like that great of a psychiatrist. She's rather rude, dismissive, and argumentative with her patient. Let's imagine for a moment that Case 63 actually ''was'' a delusional man: Would her treatment of him have been appropriate? She's rather rude, dismissive, and argumentative with her patient. Is she not a very good psychiatrist across the board? Or is her treatment of Case 63 fairly unique and singular, because she thinks he's lying, and because he rattles her?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* AlternativeCharacterInterpretation: Dr Knight doesn't seem like that great of a psychiatrist. Let's imagine for a moment that Case 63 actually ''was'' a delusional man: Would her treatment of him have been appropriate? She's rather rude, dismissive, and argumentative with her patient. Is she not a very good psychiatrist across the board? Or is her treatment of Case 63 fairly unique and singular, because she thinks he's lying, and because he rattles her?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 1 (click to see context) from:
* ViewerPronunciationConfusion: InvertedTrope. As an exclusively audio product, spelling is just assumed. Roiter? Reuter?
to:
* ViewerPronunciationConfusion: InvertedTrope. As an exclusively audio product, spelling is just assumed. Roiter? Is it Roiter or Reuter?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 1 (click to see context) from:
* ViewerPronunciationConfusion: InvertedTrope. As an exclusively audio product, spelling is just assumed.
to:
* ViewerPronunciationConfusion: InvertedTrope. As an exclusively audio product, spelling is just assumed. Roiter? Reuter?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* ViewerPronunciationConfusion: InvertedTrope. As an exclusively audio product, spelling is just assumed.
