I like 'em just fine. But then whadda I know? I usually root for the villain ;-)

Okay, seriously, there are a lot of good reasons to like "these people." Let's start with Don:

(1) Insists rude gents remove their hats and show respect to the uncomfortable lady in the elevator.
(2) Talks to minorities as if they're people not servants.
(3) Tries to be a good father to his kids--doesn't hit his son, takes time to explain things to his daughter, makes her late night snacks.
(4) Tries to stay loyal to good clients instead of tossing them away to go after bigger fish.
(5) Recognizes and rewards talent--which we see with Joan and the TV situation isn't always the case. Wants to promote those who deserve it.
(6) Doesn't out homosexuals. Has a live-and-let-live ethic.
(7) Doesn't sleep with his secretaries.
(8) Sends money to his "ex" wife (i.e., takes care of war widows).
(9) Knows how to party.
(10) Is pro-active. He may not always do the wise or smart thing, but he's never passive.

Reasons enough to like him? Who do you want to explore next?

LOL! So true, and yet, we "loved" Tony Soprano! And Silvio and Christophah, and Johnny Sack et al (all except Ralphie, I was glad when Tony chopped off his head!).

It's their struggle with evil that is very interesting...

And what 13 said about Don. He isn't all evil--he is a product of his times.

Bert Cooper on the other hand is indeed, Old Scratch!

#6--The way he protected Sal really clinched it for me. A much lesser man would have said, "Ewww, I don't want to work with a F--! I'm telling Roger and Cooper and everyone and let's get rid of that degenerate!!"

Good list of his strengths--he really is the best man at S/C! I wish he had been in charge of Harry b/c I think he would have kept Joan on in the TV role. She was a natural.

Welcome to advertising!! It's just like politics!

@fiftytwo: you stated in your opening all the reasons I couldn't remain in advertising in all good conscience. At first, for me at least, the challenge of getting people to buy the product was enough. As my naivety assuaged, my disillusionment grew and I came to understand that advertising is only successful when the majority of a target market buy a product they neither need nor can afford. If products are only purchased by those who both need and can afford them, not enough could be sold, thereby limiting the need for production and jobs. (Think video game systems here and justify any one of them as a "need") My background as a copywriter was the initial draw for me to Mad Men. I'm not an economist, but I know for a certainty that our current economy (up to Sept. '08 and thru now) is based on all of us living well beyond our means. If we all (and I mean ALL) suddenly began to live within our means and save whatever discretionary income we have, our economy would collapse just as sure as I'm sittin' here. IMHO this phenomenon began when revolving credit joined national advertising to produce a lethal combination of no limit spending and "keeping up with the Jones's". This mindset is so pervasive that at this point we cannot wean our economy from it without suffering a major crash and long-term contraction.

Bipolar-- Amazing story. I understand where you're coming from. So we're all sleeping on beds made of money? No wonder my back hurts.

Maybe this recession will help us define "need" a little better. But you're right, that would come at the expense of higher unemployment. Yet at the same time, there are real needs which go unmet every day around the world. Too bad advertisers can't find some profitable way to do something truly beneficial instead of propping up a self-defeating system. If only feeding the hungry and housing the homeless and restoring the environment could become something people competed over, instead of buying a bigger home or car or winning the hand of the hottest babe.

@Betty Crocker - Re #6 - I must disagree with you on that point. I don't know if you worked at a creative job in NYC in 1963 but no way would Don or another higher up say "Ewww, I don't want to work with a F--! I'm telling Roger and Cooper and everyone and let's get rid of that degenerate!!"

Come on, part of your job was having panache.

I was a very young girl working in Television at that time and from what I observed with some very talented gay men was as long as you did your job well you were respected. What you did outside the office was no concern of theirs.

That's good to know. I was merely riffing on the boys reaction to Kurt. They were none too pleased, to say the least, though I was pleased to see that he was still there. So that is in line with your point.

I just think they might turn on Sal more than a newcomer like Kurt, for whom they have no other expectations. Since they obviously knew him for so long. They might suddenly decide he must go.

But clearly, Don thought it best he "limit his exposure."

Pen--question: you may have "known" they were gay, but were they out like gays can be today? Like Kurt or if another man besides Don saw what they saw?

@Fifty-two: Unfortunately, there is no real profit to be made by feeding the hungry, housing the homeless or restoring the environment. Well, maybe someone will find a way to profit from solar panels or some algae based bio-fuel. My guess, mostly those who persuade investors and profit from the sale of bonds.

No, we're not sleeping on beds of money, we're sleeping on beds of credit and debt and lots of it.

At first I thought 52 was your age, but I'm guessing your birth year? If so, you probably had parents (like mine) who were children during the Great Depression?? I believe there is a mindset difference among people whose parents vs. grandparents experienced the Depression first hand. I think we're all going to experience it first hand very soon.

@Betty Crocker

In Television being known to be "queer" (which was the term used then) was really no big deal. However, most were not flamboyant about it, you just sort of knew. Like the man Sal met at the business meeting.

Even the "pages" that worked reception in the offices after 5 pm and then worked the live talk shows at night were mostly gay but the ones that weren't were real womanizers. Sometimes you couldn't tell which were which!

Solar panels are like any other construction item. There's plenty of profit to be made on the front end like roofers make or stone mason companies, etc. (they do have to have a broader range of price points though). Or in other environmentally beneficial products and services, manufacturing and installing wind turbines, retrofitting buildings with green technology, installing and maintaining green roofs, fitting a building with geothermal technology, running urban greenhouses and other local food distribution companies, etc.

It doesn't have to be a dependence thing where we have to pay a multinational corporation DAILY to survive. I don't know where this mindset that greed and extortion equals capitalism came from. Indeed, that's the opposite of capitalism.

A fine profit for a good service sure. A market controlled only by a few major multinational corporations and the politicians they pay off, no.

Actually, there used to be a nice little profit to be made from affordable housing in the form of public/private partnerships where the government gave developers interest free loans and subsidies to build project-based assisted housing for the poor, seniors and disabled. When regulated properly, there were some fine housing stock and a nice tidy management fee/rental subsidy for the owner. But those programs got eliminated over the past 8 years.

I agree many of us are living beyond are means, but very few are doing it to live like kings on a paupers salary. Somehow, things we used to take for granted, our jobs, our medical care, our insurance, our home values, our utilities, all started getting whittled away and now even formerly middle class folks are truly struggling. And it's not from a plethora of big-screen TVs and SUVs (though a few are). At the end of the month, many families need to use the credit card to pay for groceries or new clothes for growing kids. A lot. Or even at worst, sometimes folks can't quite give up the annual vacation they took every year, but suddenly year by year, is becoming harder to take at the same salary and with no more extravagant spending than before. It's hard to accept that we must live like paupers through no fault of our own.

@BC that's all true, and yet there is real dichotomy in lifestyles among what is broadly termed "the middle class". It is not just the "upper" middle class that are buying SUVs, big screen t.v.s, and 2 1/2 bath houses. Honestly, the people that are truly struggling are working class who no longer have the ability to move into the middle class since the cost of higher education is completely out of reach. College loans must be weighed against the very real possiblity that a starting salary upon graduation (if a job can be found) will not support a cost-of-living that includes student debt.

I was watching something, I can't remember what, where someone said something so very simple, yet so very true and compelling--how people that work as lab technicians or teachers aides or home health care workers--LOTS of jobs that require some training and skill and are very important in our lives--can't survive on their salaries. They often earn anywhere from 8 to maybe 15 dollars/hour and no benefits, and frequently they aren't even really employees, just permanent temps or part-time.

We can't have that as a country--forget cars and houses, which they might need to get to/from work, they can barely afford rent or insurance.

Even a nice "shop girl" (that was one of the examples they used), who used to be able to keep an apartment, a few vacations and live okay can't survive. Or mechanics, or the barber.

None of the old Leave it to Beaver occupations could survive today! (To relate it back, albeit loosely, to Mad Men).

And those characters all had cars, TVs and homes. They didn't have to use credit cards to pay for something that was not quite a luxury, but not a necessity either. The things of American life...

BTW--I hate cars myself, though I kind of need one in my town, though I try to walk when I can. We're just a bit too far though for grocery shopping and other major tasks by foot. And there's too many houses with yards to get past before you get to the useful/errand oriented or employment commercial areas. That's partly why I want to move back to NYC so I can get rid this car culture that I can't stand!

Why do Europeans seem to be able to live quite well, with at least a TV, some family travel, good educations, good food and wine, health care and comfortable, if modest, housing, and not have to be a doctor, lawyer or banker to survive? We need more of that here.

Thank you everyone, for your responses.

Bipolarbear, you are right about my being born in '52. My folks did indeed suffer from the Depression. Dad managed to go to college on the GI Bill, and the Air Force got him out of the miserable mid-western small towns he and Mom grew up in. I went to college on a partial scholarship and worked in the Univ. library to pay for a 2-bdrm apt I shared with three other girls. My husband and I try to limit our spending to what we can afford after bills are paid and something put into savings. But we owe on a car and a house. My sons would have had to take out loans if it weren't for my mother-in-law whose secretarial career allowed her to set up college accts for grandchildren. She bought used furniture and day-old bread all her married life. My own grandparents thought having a mortgage was shameful! I'm very thankful we all enjoy good health, because who knows how good our health insurance is until some injury or illness tests it with a claim?

Anyway, all that is taking us away from my original question. I would like to agree with Thirteen about Don, but I find I'm picking holes in many of her statements. Particularly that Don gives money to Anna. Did he really have any choice? It's not as if he went looking for her. It looks to me like he bought her silence.

But hey-- don't let that stop you! Find me a reason to like Peggy, Betty, Pete, Joan or Roger. I like an anti-hero as much as the next gal, but come on-- these characters just don't have enough redeeming qualities! I'm finding myself loving it when they fail or expose themselves to criticism or ridicule.

It's not that I'm a prude or think I'm better than they are. I just like to see people improving, or at least struggling to. I'm a sucker for a good redemption story. Examples: Pride and Prejudice, A Tale of Two Cities, A Christmas Carol, Silas Marner, The Fisher King, Rain Man...

The more miserable the sinner, the greater the pay-off when he or she turns over that new leaf. Will Don ever do it for real, or just delude himself that he's already done it or that he doesn't need to because others are even worse than he is?

I felt sorry for Peggy after her child was born, thinking she'd become sadder but wiser and tougher on the outside. But she seems to have grown tougher on the inside as well, and I fear Anita might be right to be angry at how easily Peggy forgot it all. How can she be saved?

bipolar wrote
@Fifty-two: Unfortunately, there is no real profit to be made by feeding the hungry, housing the homeless or restoring the environment

You couldn't be more wrong. There is plenty of profit in these things and it's paid for by the taxpayers.

Feeding the hungry is done through food stamps which 11% of people collect. In reality it's an agricultural subsidy administered by the Dept of Agriculture and it benefits the food producers.

Housing the homeless is also a big business and benefits the landlords who know the rent is guaranteed by the government( taxes)

And the environment is also a big business especially with this current global warming hoax.

OMG-- how do they find us?

Jean, have you ever heard of the Chesapeake Bay?

.....And a hoax it is, at least the way it's being portrayed. I was married to a geophysicist, whose 35-year career was heading up the global CO2 project at a world-renowned institution. He was livid when Al Gore's movie came out.

On the subject of food stamps, and government aid, here's a funny story.

We offered the brother of a friend of ours, who has been down on his luck, a long stint on a good-paying construction job.

He declined, saying his car had issues.

When we told him we had an extra car we were not using, completely at his disposal (even weekends!), he declined again, saying that he made more money on welfare and receiving food stamps than we could pay him.

The fact is, with the money we were going to pay him, he could have completely fixed his car, paid his rent AND put money in the bank, but he preferred to watch TV all day and collect government money, and I get the impression he is not alone in this.

[Sorry to digress, but apparently this IS the topic now.}

Betty: I notice that you have a very distorted view of the past as well as today. If I remember correctly, all of those old US TV shows from the 50's had the father working in something like the insurance business and they were all executives. Insurance will always be around and will be a good business especially for the people at the higher positions. Credit cards weren't used as much but businesses like dept. stores did extend credit to customers and you could still get into debt from buying too much stuff.
You also seem to believe that homosexuals were somehow persecuted in the past. Nobody paid any attention to them and the police only very rarely hassled them in their bars or clubs when they would get a complaint. You've probably heard of Stonewall, it's a bar, but it's also near where people live and they didn't appreciate gays giving each other bj's in public in the area around the bar. Some were arrested for disorderly conduct or public lewdness.

@Betty Crocker - Europeans do it well because they have socialized medicine, mandatory vacations, and don't rely on private transportation.

Jean--You have no knowledge that it is a hoax. We are having a civil discussion here and there's no reason to come in and use such divisive language. Besides, now that you've raised the issue, there's far more money in oil and continued production of gas-burning cars than there is in greenhouses and solar energy and powering electric cars (though again, good small and medium businesses). I hardly think the energy industry is a trustworthy source of our environmental science, including their "thinktanks" that they fund for their "research."

Let's leave this to the scientists. The vast weight of the evidence is that this is a man-made problem, caused by our use of fossil fuels, over-population, our destructive agriculture methods of industrial farming that strips soil of its nutrients and humus and our factory farming of livestock.

.....This forum managed to make it through two entire seasons AND breaks, in a relatively respectful manner, without dragging political wrestling, and the mandatory mud-slinging and name-calling, into the threads.

Now there are those who habitually bring it up, and I am quite sure that I am not the only person who feels imposed upon to have someone else's opinions thrust in my face at every waking opportunity.

While Mad Men portrays a certain despicable group of folks(your words) you could find a Don, Roger, Joan, Pete, Freddie and most any other Mad Men character in a just about any other business. Since I am from North Carolina, take the Andy Griffith Show. Andy could have easily been Don Draper a do gooder in public, but we dont have a clue what Andy did after a few drinks or when he was on a trip to Raleigh staying at the Y. Barney is easy, he is Pete, who always wants it right now and without the work, and a whiner. Floyd could be Sal, and artisic type and closet homosexual. Aunt Bea could do it all, so naturally she is Joan. Strange as it sounds they both are about the same time frame, just one is whitewashed to fit tv back then, and one is darkened to sell ad time and get us to watch. By the way, Earnest T Bass would be Lois

Conversations are great. Arguments are not. I'm beginning to think my idea for separate threads for liberals and conservatives wasn't such a crazy idea. I have been enjoying this thread so much, as well as the one about Vietnam. It'd be a shame if either of these threads devolved into a left-right bash.

I don't think characters have to be such great people for you to enjoy observing their journey. Yes, I do want to see some of them redeem themselves a bit. To learn and grow. But I'm not expecting miracles. A while back I was talking to some friends about the film Sideways. They hated the film because the characters were such flawed individuals. I liked the film because I thought the characters were so well drawn, even if they were failing as human beings much of the time. I just like when a writer can really get to the heart of someone, even if that someone has a heart of darkness. Where would literature be without our misfits and villains? Do I have to like Macbeth or just observe his journey? He certainly doesn't get redeemed. Who is worthy of the longer discussion: Pollyanna or Raskolnikov? Really nice people make great marriage partners, but somehow, IMHO - lousy literature.

What an interesting thread...

Dry...I understand part of your remarks ((6:40) but am not clear on name-calling....where? I didn't see any.... I see an argument, and not for the first time.

And maybe the forum is broader now than the first two seasons etc. because MM is more popular week by week, and therefore attract more participants. I dunno.. just a thought.

PS I still think your remark about MM is the best I've heard "MM is an easter egg hunt for adults" its beyond apt... MW & Co should use it..

NNT I like your post...flawed indivduals are so much more compelling becausee they reflect our everyday realities.
(Also it was in my "posting gap" - for myself, I don't mind a civil argument)

@Melba Toast: I agree civil arguments are also okay. Like the one Betty had with dondraperesq a few days ago, I think. Before other folks got in and were not so civil.

NNT... but of course Cherie.... accent on the "Civil". Nice if they could stay that way

And now for something off track and obscure... someone posted on main that the first box the bizarre Miss Farrell used was a "Melba Toast" box. I checked, it is. Gotta love that MADly detailed Weiner and cohorts... (Clearly I am channeling FanNan, and probably "need to take my meds") lol and Cheers.

.....No disrespect, Melba, but I have to stand by this post. I apologize for the confusion - this has been brewing for a few days, or more.

Please refer to numerous threads and posts, starting with S3:1, where anyone who dared express disappointment, solely with the FILMMAKING, which everyone here has ALWAYS done, was immediately and hysterically labeled either a homophobe, a religious fanatic or a gun-toting "righty" and it was an all-out witch-hunt.

Did it ever occur to any of those people, most of whom are here now, that some Mad Men fans MIGHT just have some very thoughtful, very deliberately educated views that veer to NEITHER extreme??

I've seen more angry steam-rolling, arrogance, narcissism, bullying, name-calling and mudslinging than even the ugly racist threads that were the scourge of past seasons.

At least those "discussions" existed in encapsulated threads which basically didn't leak over onto the rest of the forum. Not so here, now.

I said it before, and I’ll say it again – I’ve seen these exact discussions completely annihilate another forum, and those people had been friends, through thick and thin, for YEARS.

And, in case no one has noticed, many of the more gentle, mild-mannered, humorous (yes, HUMOROUS) posters of yore are not here now, for that very reason. Not everyone is here to bray, ad nauseum, about their political views, which may or may not be accurate. And God forbid anyone else have an opinion, or even a LACK THEREOF.

I appreciate peacekeeping techniques and have often employed them in the past myself, but they are useless when others choose to simply stomp over them and continue with the dogmatic diatribes.

Last I checked, this is still a forum about the show Mad Men, and I THOUGHT it was supposed to resemble fun, at least in part. There are MYRIAD politically-oriented forums on the internet where it’s expected there is going to be some who are duking it out. Here, we are captive and have no choice should some participants choose to do so.

The most grievous part for me is wanting and intending to like and respect everyone, and based on these behaviors, continually be challenged to do just that.

Frankly, I resent that. As some might say, “You’re harshing my mellow.”

(I'm glad you like my Easter egg analogy.)

@Melba: re name-calling, I believe you called me a liar over on the other thread earlier today. Just your inner Joe Wilson surfacing, I suppose.

@NNT: While I tried to keep my cool with Betty last week, I would not describe Betty's antics as civil. Intolerant is a better description.

@Betty: as for your desire to move out of L.A. back to NY-- please share your address. I'll mail you the plane ticket.

.....As to the original subject of this thread, it's been said before here that we love them BECAUSE they are a hot mess.

Voyeuristic human nature, I guess.

NNT-- I agree that villains are necessary to keep things real and interesting. But no one would watch/read "The Scottish Play" if there weren't several good or innocent characters who stand in contrast to the evil ones. Shakespeare gives us a "foil" in Banquo. The hero is Macduff, who avenges Duncan and himself, then puts the rightful king on the throne. We need that resolution.

In Mad Men, the villains don't seem to have any contrast. I was rooting for Don but I can't after he pulled that repetitious thing with the stewardess and then the motel fiasco with the hitchers. Betty, Roger and now Peggy just deserve whatever they get. It's so frustrating!

@Dry Manhattan: All good points. Thanks for these posts.

@Don: We're cool, but Betty lives in Chicago, not LA and from what I gather, she is fairly well to do. But if you have any air miles to spare please send her over for the weekend to SF. I know I, and maybe Melba Toast, would love to get together with her, for coffee and "a nosh."

@52: I think we're basically on the same page. Per usual, I might add. I just don't think anyone in Mad Men is so bad that they don't deserve our sympathy.

Remember too that Macbeth was a good man gone bad. He wasn't evil to start out with. That's the journey. Oedipus too, and he had the "mommy and daddy" of all flaws. Hubris.

Gotta catch a bus...

@NNT: Betty posted in our exchange last week that she formerly was in NY as a prosecutor, then moved to LA as a private practice lawyer, then became a chef and non-profit director. Above, she also referenced the bad traffic, necessity for a car and lack of public transportation. I presumed she was still in LA. Hence my reference.

Hm. I also recall something in the story that Macbeth was goaded into a high crime by a terrible, conniving woman.

Hm. I also recall something in the story that Macbeth was goaded into a high crime by a terrible, conniving woman.

An Othello was goated into a high crime by a terrible, conniving man. What's your point???

Just pointing out a conspicuous omission of an important plot-point in Macbeth. Not Othello. What's yours?

BTW, thirteen, I liked your list of admirable traits of Don Draper. One thing to add to that list, he always seems to know the right thing to say. Though he doesn't always do the right thing, he is smooth.

Ultimately, MadMen is a show about ad men. And as Don's ghostly dad (his own inner conscience) points out, all they do is create bullsh*t. He is a con man, a trickster, a liar--but so are the most famous characters in litereature from Odysseus to Bugs Bunny. Not highly moral or ethical, but always entertaining and fascinating.

If you watch a show about highly paid ad men, about people who don't produce anything but bullsh*t...what do you expect to get? It is their job to sell anything that is legal to sell and that they get paid to sell. And they do it not only because they're well paid, but because they like pulling such con jobs on the public. They revel in the power to manipulate.

In short, these characters are never going to be redeemable so long as this is their job, the one they want to do, the one they have ambitions to keep doing. But that's what makes them all the more attractive. A nun with saintly qualities isn't much of a surprise or very interesting. But when an ad man has good qualities, he shines the brighter, and we appreciate him the more. Don's honesty and loyalty with clients is the more admirable because he is a professional con-man. At SC it takes true guts to stand up for what's right. I don't know if that "redeems" him, but it certainly makes him interesting. And to me, that's all a character needs to be.

I was about to post this, when I previewed my post and I now see that the Othello discussion has already started without me!

@don: Again we're cool. I assume you know I'm kidding around with you, but yeah, she now lives in the Chicago area. Just as I know you were kidding about Macbeth and the conniving woman. Ultimately Macbeth chose to make the decisions he made. Just like Othello. Othello was tricked into believing his wife was unfaithful, but it was still his decision to murder her.

Forgive me if I missed this in a previous discussion: What sort of law do you practice? I always fall into the trap of assuming people are entertainment lawyers if they live in LA.

@NNT: Good. Glad we're all on the same page.

No previous discussion. Mostly labor & employment, and some business litigation.

So I take it I'm the only one here who feels like all the bad stuff is too relentless. Would it kill them to show one happy-ish marriage or one person who tries to escape the seaminess of their profession by trying to create a personal life that's clean, outside the city? OK, I'll admit Joan seemed happy to leave SC and start a better life, but it's not turning out very well, is it? There's no escape!

I swear if Don starts an affair with that teacher, I may have to find a new show. I like Dr. House quite a bit-- at least he's acknowledging that he needs to change. Of course, he will have to continue to struggle with his demons, otherwise there would be no story.

Do you think Don will take Conrad Hilton's advice? Will we see him show up on time, put his kids' pictures on the desk? I doubt he'll take up reading the Bible, because I think he associates it with the stepmother who shamed and diminished him.

DDEsq-- One time Don Draper did not say the right thing was when he answered Hilton with the sarcastic, "maybe I was late because I was reading the Bible with my family". Connie didn't take kindly to that.

No Don--i used to live in LA and then moved to NYC and became a prosecutor. Now I am in Chicagoland area with my husband, but far prefer NYC and so were are moving there (if we ever can sell the house in this awful market).

We were having a civil discussion until the SS stormed in and disrupted things. You can't come in and insult people and then call the people defending themselves rude. That's just not fair.

I may immediately call out a inaccurate comment, like a gratuitous "global warming is a hoax," but that doesn't make me rude. It's not like I started the divisive talk, I'm indeed trying to put an end to it. I wasn't talking political, you were.

@fifty-two: True, but Don was standing up for himself against a self-righteous accusation by a guy who was not yet his client. Hilton still hired him because Don was able to politely make him realize that it was he who was the one being inappropriate in Don's own office. Standing his ground made Hilton admire and trust him even more.

Yet again, another g-d response vanished and I had to resign in again despite the fact it showed me as signed in.

This site really sucks.

I just said that I've been here on and off since the first season and we've had political discussions on occasion. The show lends itself in part by choosing the time period and the inevitable changes that are occurring under the characters noses.

But it seems like since this summer of discontent, if there is anything that could remotely become a platform for political attack, it happens. Defend Sal, we have to hear about how gross gays were at Stonewall and deserved the police raid. Talk about public transportation or green technology--inherently good things by any standard and we have to hear about how global warming is a hoax. Talk about Peggy and Duck, we have to get a lecture on abstinence. And that's fine, of course you're entitled to your opinion, but we're entitled to disagree with you. But any retorts back at those opinions are met with, how rude of you to disagree with me!

There's not one topic that doesn't devolve into a hate fest anymore. Talking about housing is a GOOD thing--the methods we find to provide it can be up for disagreement and discussion, but that's not a reason to attack the person you disagree with.

@Betty: Don't be so hard on yourself. Characterizing yourself as the SS isn't all that constructive. Just try a little harder next time and we'll all stay happy.

You're a cutie, little fella...;-0 But I think I was here first. You do crack me up, though. You're an eager one!

52--Were you a Sopranos fan?

I agree with you that if you really think about what these men are doing, it really is an endless parade of evil and unredeeming qualities and men like them really are part of the reason this country is the way it is. The characters are starting to show signs of suffering from their bad choices/loss of humanity, etc. It is a morality play in a way, just like The Sopranos. But even more tragic in a way, because there is something so appealing about the characters at first, so fun. And they are losing that now.

I mean, I loved Tony Soprano, but there's no way I would EVER want to live in a Jersey suburb in a McMansion and hang out with Carmela and Rosalie Aprile or god forbid be married to any of those guys and their track suits and their Escalades and their Badabing, etc. They were entertaining caricatures, but not very appealing ones, from a lifestyle point of view. They were operatic, if you will.

But Don and Roger--I would LOVE to have a drink with them. I would love to wear Betty's dresses, etc.

DDesq...Well... I am quite surprised at your "name calling" remark and its tone. You say that I called you a liar... what???? First, I've not called you or anyone any name ever here or anywhere else in cyberspace. That is a pretty nasty thing to say and I am asking you to back it up here.. now... on this thread.

I posted two rebuttals to you on the Vietnam thread regarding some of your remarks there. You never addressed one remark back to me on that thread. Yet you make this accusation to and about me here.

What on earth are you talking about?? Please give me the courtesy of a complete reply.

…..Betty…..I hope you are not referring to ME as the “SS.” That would fall under the category of name-calling, wouldn’t it?

Regarding my post about the global warming issues as they are presented in the media at the moment being largely a partial depiction, at best, to stir up hysteria, and garner support for certain other political reasons, let me point out that you completely disregarded my perfectly credible statement that global warming is NOT presented in an accurate light, and continued on in your disagreement with Jean (not me), accusing HER of having no evidence.

How do you know that?? You are clearly well-read, but my question is, WHAT are you reading?

Let me be slightly more clear on this matter, and then I will put the entire thing to bed, at least from my position.

My brief statement on the issue WAS accurate, such as it was, with the scientific evidence which I DO know, and I felt qualified to make it because, as I stated, I was not married to SOME geophysicist, working on SOME global CO2 project, for SOME state institution.

I was married to THE geophysicist, working on THE global CO2 project, at THE state institution of scientific studies. The global authority for the past 50 or so years.

I am willing to discuss the reason I make this statement privately, not in public, but be assured I do not make it lightly. I should probably not have made it at all, since I don’t enjoy these debates, but you got my goat on this one.

As to the political posts, over and over and over, day after day, it’s my belief that it does an injustice to the few other people on this forum, who may or may not share your viewpoint, but just might not care to be exposed to it on a daily basis, OR discuss so many hot button issues.

You are leaving zero room for anyone else’s opinions or positions. It’s just plain disrespectful, and makes some people uncomfortable. You have your supporters, but not everyone appreciates the atmosphere it creates for the rest.

There was a day, not that long ago, when politics, sex, religion and a couple other subjects I can’t recall were considered crass and rude to discuss both in public, and mixed company.

While saying that, I will also accede that, should you or others find yourselves simply unable to live unless you DO post here about your political opinions and what you have read (extensively) in the media, then perhaps curbing those comments to their own unique threads would be the answer in compromise. With a clear title and warning so those who don’t subscribe don’t “enter,” so to speak.

I mean, I came here to this thread to read about the series characters, and got a big dose of…..well, not that.

Just a suggestion, nothing mandatory about it, but I will say that I believe the lack of respect issue, on both sides, is distressing to many people present here who may or may not have the guts to bring it up for fear of being bullied.

Dear Dry...I wanted to respond to you before the night is out. Truly regret that what I said came across in ways not foreseen or intended -- theres more but am just not up to a full reply right now. At the minute I feel blindsided - like hit with a big wet fish ( and hasten to say of course not at all to do with you).. more anon.

I meant the coming in to a clearly civil discussion, giving your political opinions and then calling those who disagree rude and divisive. It's like wilding and then blaming the citizens for calling the police.

To repeat my point above: We were not forcing our views on you. We were enjoying a fun converstation and you came in and gave your opinion--to which you are entitled and to which we are entitled to disagree. It is you, not us, that are turning things into political tirades. We defend Sal and we have to hear about how gross gays were at Stonewall and deserved the police raid. We talk about public transportation or green technology--inherently GOOD things by any standard and we have to hear about how global warming is a hoax. We talk about Peggy and Duck, we have to get a lecture on abstinence.

But if we respond back at those opinions, we are met with, "How rude of you to disagree with me! You are destroying these threads with your political posts."

You don't really read my posts, you just want to disagree with me.

Seriously Dry--Please read this and think about it. The topic is about the lack of moral fiber of these characters based in part on the inherent immorality of some of their business dealings--war for profit, etc. It was pretty clearly stated and the topic raises a plethora of discussions about lifestyle and consumerism and the economy (and the Sopranos btw). Those aren't overtly republican or democrat per se, but they, like a lot of lifestyle and economic discussions, have some underlying political topics. They are INTELLECTUAL topics, rather than political ones. Obviously heavier than the color of Betty's dress, which I also like to discuss at times, but still, not divisive or alienating, except to those who don't want to have intellectual discussions.

Indeed, someone raised the idea of living on credit cards and others posted about real income and ability to make money on other endeavors besides weapons and oil, including green technology. Perfectly fine topics.

Then we get the gratuitous comments about global warning hoaxes and gays were better off when they stayed in the closet and any abuse they got was from, eek, actually being gay. Again, fine, your right to come in and share that opinion, but why get so mad when we disagree?

From the first episode of MM, Peggy was my favorite character. At first, I thought of her as a green school girl on her first adventure in her big city job. My reaction to her tryst with Pete was: this will be a hard lesson learned quickly. When it became apparent she was pregnant and didn't know it, I was a bit angry with her, but forgave her and chalked it up to naivety. However, after her tryst with Duck, I'm torn with feeling sorry for her extreme naivety (or blatant stupidity) and being very angry with her unwillingness to learn from past mistakes. Though the burger boy tryst can't be said to be moral, at least it was anonymous and not job threatening. I'm beginning to believe Peggy is one of those girls bound and determined to screw up her life (literally) permanently. She may be one of those people who manage to ruin their career in spite of hard work and talent. Peggy, Peggy, Peggy! I want so much for her to mature, and am less hopeful it will happen with each passing episode.

That said, we can hardly expect honesty from people who make their living telling lies (b.s.), and dishonest people are seldom honest with themselves.

…..Betty, I assume you mean me, after all, so I will reply to this, and then I’m dropping it because, as I said, I do not enjoy these inflammatory, tail-chasing debates that never seem to go anywhere good.

I meant the coming in to a clearly civil discussion, giving your political opinions and then calling those who disagree rude and divisive. It's like wilding and then blaming the citizens for calling the police.

Betty, I did no such thing, and used no such terms. As to your discussion, fine (although frankly these never look civil to me), but this forum is still called “Mad Men,” not “Betty Crocker,” and you are not alone here in your own private world.

To repeat my point above: We were not forcing our views on you. We were enjoying a fun conversation and you came in and gave your opinion--to which you are entitled and to which we are entitled to disagree.

That is true.

It is you, not us, that are turning things into political tirades.

Patently false and defamatory, and I do not take that lightly, at all.

We defend Sal and we have to hear about how gross gays were at Stonewall and deserved the police raid. We talk about public transportation or green technology--inherently GOOD things by any standard and we have to hear about how global warming is a hoax. We talk about Peggy and Duck, we have to get a lecture on abstinence.

Not from me, and your statements do not apply to me in any way, shape or form.

But if we respond back at those opinions, we are met with, "How rude of you to disagree with me! You are destroying these threads with your political posts."

Your words, not mine. Those would never be my words.

You don't really read my posts, you just want to disagree with me.

Again, patently false and defamatory.

It’s my strong impression at this point that you are projecting heavily, so I won’t approach you again. Again, these things go nowhere good.

Sorry, but I stand by what I said even more now, and I think I’m being generous here.

I’m just one person, and would not presume to tell you what to do, only to express my views on the matter of global warming (one time), and an inordinate number of politically-based and emotionally-charged posts, which may or may not be well-informed and accurate (possibly not the last time).

…..Melba…..No worries, Peaches.

(Get it? Peaches….Melba? Sigh. I am a geek.)

Sorry you are experiencing some turbulence, but you’ll be okay…..(just breathe…..)

.....bipolar.....It's been a while since Peggy was that "green," as you say, but I did think it was VERY amusing that, working the weekend in Paul's office, the men were comparing university educations, and Peggy very earnestly piped in with, "I graduated from Miss Deavers' Secretarial School," or something similar.

Pretty cute.

.....Sorry, Betty, I did say "hoax." I apologize for being inconsistent with that one.

[The End.]

Just pointing out a conspicuous omission of an important plot-point in Macbeth. Not Othello. What's yours?

Oh, well, if that's the case, let's add in a few more. Androgenous witches (they have beards but are called "sisters") get MacBeth thinking about being king and murdering Duncan in the first place--but, of course, they couldn't have done this if he hadn't already been ambitious--which he admits in act 1. He then spills the beans to the wife, and she pushes him into murdering the King. So, I'd say that you neglected a very, very important plot point in ignoring MacBeth's own ambitious psychology and the supernatural temptation offered him, which both indicate he may want someone to pressure him into doing this.

Other important plot points are that his conniving wife only gets him to kill one character. Odd that people tend to forget that. But she only talks him into killing the King. He talks himself into killing everyone else (into becoming a mass murderer of women and children), and, in fact, doesn't let her in on his plans to kill these others at all. Very important plot points all.

I mean, if you're going to cover important plot points you should cover them all, shouldn't you? You might give a wrong impression about either not knowing the play or being somewhat bias if you only focus on one.

@Melba: Not sure why you insist I re-post your own words, which you could easily re-read yourself, but per your request, see below. Not sure how you can discern "tone" from typed words. To the extent there is any tone, borrowing from the President, I'm just "calling you out" on your proclaimed innocence, and being a smart ass generally. I am, as always, still willing to engage in civil discourse with a respectful exchange of ideas.

From “Sterling Cooper and Viet Nam”

By Melba Toast on 9/30/09 1:43 PM EDT posted:

"You state that the point of VN was the serious communist threat. That is a half truth and like all half truths, way more deceptive than an outright lie."

@Thirteen: Relax. We're all having fun here.

@Dry: Peggy was high and trying to fit in. More of her social awkwardness. Are you as agrevated with her as I am that she still acts like she just graduated from Miss Deavers' Secretarial School 2 months ago? Its like she's incapable of growing up. She could change her wardrobe and wear grown up clothes and would give the impression of a child in women's clothing playing dress-up. She's drivin' me nuts!

In Mad Men, the villains don't seem to have any contrast. I was rooting for Don but I can't after he pulled that repetitious thing with the stewardess and then the motel fiasco with the hitchers. Betty, Roger and now Peggy just deserve whatever they get. It's so frustrating!

I actually do not think MacBeth a good comparison to MadMan because Shakespeare does have characters too good to be true. The soon-to-be-king Malcolm is a virgin for heaven's sake!

But I think you're doing a disservice to MadMen by saying that there is no contrast--that they're just evil. They're not. They're human and like humans they fluctuate. Sometimes they drop down to their nadir, sometimes they rise up to a zenith. They are, if you will, their own contrast. We contrast them at their worst to how they are at their best and vice versa.

And what about innocent types like Sal, who tried his very hardest with the Patio commercial, who stepped into Don's office ready to take the blame for its failure, and then Don says, "I have faith in you, make more." Does this not show the goodness of Sal? The goodness of Don? Why don't these count for you? Why don't these moments that show how very good and brave and honest these characters can be weigh in the balance of your judgment of them?

I'd hate to have you judging my life. I coulda saved orphans in India and you'd only see times I messed up and was stupid ;-D

You say they all deserve what they get--well, that is one of the themes of this season. You make your bed, you lie in it. You ask Conrad Hilton for his business--you end up having to sign a contract. Everyone in this season is learning to grow up, be an adult, stop acting childish. But before they do, they're going to throw one last adolescent tantrum. "I don't wanna! You can't make me!"

That is what these "nadirs" are all about. They're a moment of rebellion, a last hurrah--like Don going off with the hitchers. You can see this as despicable and unforgivable and irredeemable...or you can look at it as his final struggle to stay in the cocoon. I choose to see it as the later. I think you're judging everyone way too harshly if you are desperate for purely good characters to contarast the "bad ones" rather than seeing all these characters as being their own good/bad contrast, and these nadirs in their lives as crimes rather than birth pangs.

They are all being forced to come out of the cocoon whether they want to or not, dry off those wings and fly--be adults, not children or carefree teenagers. And we can't judge if they're going to be irredeemable or not until we see them take flight. All you saw in this episode was the struggle we all face when things change and we don't want them to change. When it's time to grow up and give up things that were important to us--and we have that one, final, selfish, emotional moment of hanging on before we surrender and move on. Let those who have never had such a moment, and acted badly during it, throw the first stone at these characters ;-)

Bipolarbear-- I know exactly what you mean about Peggy not learning from mistakes. I feel the same way about Don now, I feel like the writers/director set me up to be disappointed after the end of last season when we thought Don had come somewhat clean in California. He made a confession to Betty, they shouldered their parental responsibility together, and we felt hopeful that they would work things out, Then BAM! This season starts with him repeating his old pattern of cheating and lying. It's starting to take its toll on me! I'm beginning to feel manipulated by the director, who admits to deliberately shocking us by having characters do the unexpected. I hate writing that depends on shock value rather than good character development. I'm not watching just so I can gasp about who's screwing whom or whether someone will puke or pee their pants or punch someone, titillating as that is for a while. I need more than that when after three years, no one seems to have grown much. That just doesn't seem realistic to me. And just as in real life, those who don't learn from the past are bound to repeat it. Deja vu, anyone?

@Thirteen: I bow to your wisdom. Participating on this site is like taking a Lit course with Mrs. R. (my favorite English teacher)

@Fifty-two. I agree and disagree. Real people seldom vary much from their core characters. Philanderers almost never change. So, in that respect, Don has done quite a bit of changing this season, as he has only had one sexual encounter outside the marriage, as opposed to an almost constant diet before. If we think of Dick/Don as a real person, as opposed to a character, what are the real chances he can really be faithful to Betty until and unless he deals with his identity crisis? That would mean telling Betty, and that's not going to happen. What I find wild about Don this season is his inability to do both. He's either the suave. ever cool, consistently successful ad man, or he's a good Dad, semi decent husband. Never both at the same time. For a guy who always knows the right thing to say, he lacks balance. And here I thought people who always knew the right thing to say WERE balanced. Dick/Don isn't.

Peggy, on the other hand, should be young enough to learn some important life lessons and use them to her advantage. First and foremost to lose her awkwardness, and become a better judge of character. One would think the pregnancy and emotional wrenching of giving up her baby for adoption would have taught her something (anything). Apparently her denial runs pretty deep.

I'm starting to believe Betty is going to be the real surprise this season and could be the character that does the most growing of all. Her participation in the Junior League is a step in the right direction, even if it leads to a tryst with Henry.

Thirteen, I'm so sorry not to answer your very intriguing comments, but by the time I'd typed up my reply, I'd been signed out, and lost the whole thing. I'll try again tomorrow when I've recovered my temper. (PerhapsI can also recover my thoughts.)

Night all!

Because they are not cooking meth. ;)

Dry--I just ask that you re-read the start of this thread from the beginning up to yesterday at 5:48 p.m. That is when the moment the tone of the thread changed from an intellectual to a divisive discussion. There was polite discussion and even disagreement, but it was fun, civil and not in any way republican v. democrat or otherwise overtly political.

I'm not attacking you personally, just the idea that somehow I am responsible for the tone of the thread.

And 52--I've taken to copying every post before I hit submit, just in case I get that error message. It's such a pain in the rear end, but I hate after spending time on a post, it just disappears.

It's just like Dry Manhattan to come into one of these threads and start crying about "the good old days" of the MM board.

Dry, you picked on Betty, plain and simple. And yes, you did turn this into a "political" discussion by posting that people are uncomfortable with political discussions. You say you hate all the drama, yet you run right in and contribute to it. You've done this with me before.

There are plenty of posts in here about the characters - when it got "too deep" for you, you should have just left, instead of posting your usual "it was so much nicer here before all of YOU came". Grow up already.

I will say, for an obvious strong woman who's not afraid to stand up for herself, I DO so love when a handsome stranger comes to defend the honor and reputation of a woman being preyed upon by wolves, lol. Not that I can't handle it, but it is gratifying to see a gentleman like you.

You sir, are the real Don Draper! Without his obvious faults, I presume. Thanks!

DDesq: re mine of 11:53 and yours of 1:30: First, it is ingenuous of you to say you are "not sure" why I requested you to repost my words. That's because I didn't. What I did ask you was to "back up your accusation here and now... in this thread". I am sure a man of you demonstrated intelligence would be able to work out that its not so much for me to read them as for you to: Declare why you accuse, and place the words in the record of this thread.

To be clear, I must note the context, i.e. your remark which I was rebutting:

DDesq on Sterling Coo Vietnam thread 9/29 10:50: "Which was the point of Vietnam, that communism was a serious threat to our national interests..."

This remark was your proffer, in a larger argument, of an idea/political stance about Vietnam that had been believed by some, and disbelieved by others, for decades.

My riposte to you was: "You state that the point of VN was the serious communist threat. That is a half truth and like all half truths, more deceptive that an outright lie."

When I argued back (above) that your proffered remark was a half truth... I was talking about the idea/political stance itself and not the person who delivered the remark. I did not say or imply that you are a liar. Nor would I even if I thought so..which I don't. Further, I don't "name call" here or anywhere.

And I think you are quite savvy enough to have differentiated, to have realized all that. As I've noted in a number of places on this site - you are intelligent, erudite, and your analyses are always compelling.

So I am left wondering: 1) why you accused me in the first place and 2) does it have anything to do with your remark (1:30) about being a smartass?? That really is unclear... could refer to you or to me.

MADDICTS... very sorry for all this, its just that I'm very uncomfortable letting what I consider to be a serious accusation stand unchallenged. That said, the Vietnam thread is quite good... thoughtful detailed posts on a subject that has profound relevance to the sixties. Hope you may wander over there and take a look.

Back to the topic at hand... Can someone give me a reason to like Ken? Yes, I know he has treated Peggy with respect - sometimes - in the past, but not recently. And I can't see a guy as lacking in depth as he is, being able to write a good short story. The way the writers present him, he comes off as a rube. Pete has a lot more depth than Ken. When does Ken ever rock the boat? When has he seen something that someone else has missed? He's getting on my nerves bigtime. And more than anyone, I blame the lawnmower accident on his childish need to rub his John Deere success in Pete's face. Not something a grown-up would do.

Thirteen-- I'm amazed I'm still game for this after losing a page of thoughts in the wee hours. What does it matter, after all? I have to admit, part of the reason I'm so frustrated with these characters is that I've been living with "fledgling" adults and their behavior is frequently mirrored by the Mad Men. But here I can be judgmental about fictional people, can't I? ;-)

Blue Runner, you're so right-- at least they're not cooking meth! I try to watch Breaking Bad, but it's just too intense for a Sunday night when I have to go to work Monday morning.

Anyway, I hope you don't think my judgments are that harsh in my actual life! I try to practice a live-and-let-live attitude with friends, relatives and coworkers, putting myself in their shoes whenever I can. Some people try my patience, but seldom have I let anyone really have it. I will, however, avoid someone if I can't see potential for change and they are doing something hurtful.

I didn't watch the Sopranos, mainly because I'm not fond of crime shows, Mafia movies or violence on film in general. I have a sensitivity to sensationalistic television. So I came to Matt Weiner fresh and without expectations. I like advertising as a milieu for character study-- it's a creative, manipulative, good/bad kind of enterprise which I would think could test the writer's skill at animating fictional beings.

But I'm finding my patience strained by characters who seem painfully "stuck", even one-dimensional. I realized most of their problems by the end of season one. Two years later, and hardly anything has changed. I feel set up that I believed Don had an epiphany at the end of season two. I was set up to believe Joan was going to find some happiness away from the office, that Peggy had learned from her terrible ordeal. It's starting to feel contrived that NO ONE can find any contentment or escape their endless loop of bad decisions. I lived during those times, and everyone wasn't that hopeless, bomb or no bomb!

Imagine a murder mystery where the crime is never solved. Or, for that matter, Ned Flanders happy family picnics every darn day-- ho diddly hum! I get the feeling the writers/directors are constrained by the open-ended nature of this time frame, and must take us back over ground that's already covered. When I can see the puppet strings, I feel I'm being manipulated too. The pane between us becomes thin or even breaks, and I'm less willing to believe the story.

However, since reading your well-reasoned comments, Thirteen, I'm now more willing to give the dual nature of these characters more weight in my assessment of them. Of course that's how real people behave, two steps forward, one back, inching toward coping better with life's unending challenges and twists. Also, I'm better able to see that Roger is a foil for Don in many ways. Now there's a man you don't expect will ever change!

But I mean it when I say that if certain things continue, I will be hard-pressed to excuse the way this story is being told. If Don gets sexually involved with Sally's teacher, if Joan's husband commits suicide so she can return to the office, if Peggy gets preggie again, THEN will you agree they're too stuck? They certainly will be straining my idea of character development in fiction.

@Melba: Apology accepted. And the 'smartass' remark was about myself, not you.

I'm redeemable. Mrs. Draper is really pretty so she's redeemable too - don't tell my mom.

.....Another very thoughtful (and objective) post from Thirteen. What a concept.

bipolar.....As Thirteen indicated, trying to temper my criticism of Peggy only from the standpoint that she is 20-something, and I had read once from Matt that “people,” whoever that means exactly, are resistant to drastic changes because “people,” whoever they are, have a tendency to cling to their core natures.

Then I think about people like Hildy, Allison, and even Lola, who are likely not much older than Peggy, yet look quite a bit more professional in terms of hair and dress. (You have to take into account here that not everyone looks good in an up-do, which seems trivial, but may be a real factor.)

While it’s a toss-up on any given day if I completely agree with Matt’s theory, I myself complained on the fashion blog recently that if Peggy were sincerely serious about getting ahead as a woman in a man’s world, she would adopt a more polished look, and at least wear more formal business attire, rather than dressing like a secretarial school graduate, or “Jimmy Olsen, cub reporter.”

Take Rachel Menken. Nothing masculine about her, but she can rule a room full of corporate executives without saying much.

Small changes. A few more two-piece suits, coat-dresses, whatever. Lose the bumper bangs, wear some lipstick, etc. And, I’d have to agree with bipolar, that the “earnestness” is getting a little old. Peggy saw for herself in watching Joan charm a lobby full of clients, or Don charming…..well, everyone, that social skills are a huge part of the corporate world, and can be the deal-, or even a career-breaker, in many cases.

Maybe all of that just isn’t how Peggy sees herself, or where she is going in terms of femininity and feminism. I also try to think back to that age (not that long ago - ha), whether I or my peers in business were racing to look “sophisticated.” My recollection is that we modeled ourselves after the top executives, so I guess that would be a yes.

Peggy certainly has the acumen, ambition and instincts, but her presentation as a whole falls just a little short, which is surprising because she is a pretty fast learner in many other ways.

As to feeling exasperated with the characters, the last time I felt that was Don and the ditzy stew in Episode 1. I realize she threw herself at him, then glommed on for dear life, but it all just seemed beneath him, and a waste of his time and energy. Not to mention a complete disregard for his new-found “devotion” to the woman he married.

The next time I felt that irritation was not one of “our” characters, but the teacher, Suzanne Farrell. The phone call to Don’s home in a drunken state was highly inappropriate, since her real motives were pretty obvious, and even Don thought so or he would not have lied about it, but I chalked it up to her having an emotional projection.

Now, with this latest conversation in which she manufactured both an ulterior motive for Don, and a desirability she may or may not possess (not to mention those “little girl prancing in the fields” outfits), she’s coming across as more than a little delusional and manipulative.

I don’t want to go straight to “psycho,” but with only two of the fathers in the entire class present (how ironic the other one is Carlton), the whole thing came over pretty creepy.

Just curious if anyone else got a “Fatal Attraction” vibe off Suzanne Farrell that scene?

As a whole, though, I think I just tend to roll with whatever the characters are going through, because we all have both an angel (well, some of us) and a devil on our shoulders.

Life is complicated, and so are we.

Dry-- I sure didn't get the teacher dressed like "Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm" with the sash and bow! Then for her to express such cynicism was incongruous, to my ears and eyes. There's a conflict there somewhere, possibly a deliberate one by the writers. Oh goodie, another one!

And yes, that stewardess thing is still bugging me. Maybe Don thinks it didn't count because it happened to Dick Whitman on his birthday?

And I'm curious about Don's recent observation that Betty is all about herself. Has he just now arrived at this perception of her? Because if so, then he is really making progress of a sort.

....fifty-two....."There's a conflict there somewhere, possibly a deliberate one by the writers. Oh goodie, another one!"

Funny, I was just thinking that this morning, and am getting to the point of going, "Well, I'm not falling for this one."

Too much work!

People (including me) made complaints that the multiplicity and nuances are absent in this season but, being busy with so much else, it's kind of a relief for a change to sit back, bend an elbow and just enjoy the thing.

And there is still plenty to enjoy, even without the psychosocial intensities (among other things).

This season, I'm less exasperated with Don Draper and, as of this past episode, am beginning to feel sorry for the guy, as well as some real trepidation about his future.

As big a relief as it was when Bert blew off the potentially shattering revelation of Don's dual identity, we should have known he would file it away for the day he needed a trump card.

I think this is where the metaphor of the rising waters comes in.

My question since last season's buy-out is why PP&L didn't require Draper to sign a contract right then.

They are very by-the-book types, which was obvious immediately, so I can't imagine them retaining a senior executive without a contract.

Don signing a contract was the first thing I thought would happen.

Dry: I think we're all finding it hard to believe that PPL would have purchased SC without nailing down Don. Since the sale was agreed upon in his absence, Roger and Bert had the obligation to disclose that information to the buyers. And PPL would have asked. You don't purchase an apt building without knowing the history of the tenant-ship and length of the present leases, so you wouldn't buy this sort of investment without knowing what it's assets were and how long they would be attached to the main purchase. An ad agency is it's history and reputation yes, but more than that it is it's staff. Since Don is the star of SC, they'd have made sure he was part of the deal.

But, hey, this is fiction, and it must have been necessary for the plot to work, so we're just going to have to overlook it.

DDesq: If you consider my post to you an apology, then you have a lot more trouble understanding straightforward English than I previously gave you credit for. Nowhere in my post did I tender any apology, nor did I intend such, there being no reason for me to apologize to you.

There is a lot of delightful humor and teasing on this site that I really enjoy. And, I participate in my own humble ways. That said - I don't feel that an accusation from you, saying that I "called you a liar" (when I did no such thing) is in the slightest way humorous. It is counterproductive, and even destructive. Perhaps the word "smartass" - yours applied to yourself - (post 2:51) fits you better than you realize.

Finally, as you did not answer my question as to why you accused me in the first place. I will say that I still would like to know.

…..fifty-two…..Don calling Betty a narcissist! That’s a major “pot and kettle!”

NeverNot…..So right about Don – as the “jewel in the crown,” and particularly since it is a transatlantic relationship, it seemed unlikely they would overlook that.

It’s not like they didn’t know – both barrels – from the get-go, based on his own bold revelation in the merger meeting.

Maybe he made that his “term and condition” for continuing, which would be the very reason that now, BECAUSE he doesn’t have a contract of any kind, they are free to impose this on him.

It was poignant that he finally sort of got down to his almost real self in that executive meeting, saying “It matters to me……”

The fact is, in corporate business, they couldn’t care LESS what does or doesn’t matter to their cogs-in-a-wheel, so to me that was Dick’s version of almost begging and pleading for his freedom, which probably feels like his very life to him.

Clearly it mattered even more than even we might realize.

Poor Dick!

Dry-- Has anyone made a comparison between the speech Don made to Peggy and the one Bert made to him? There's another case of "kettle and pot"! I'm sure Don's bosses don't care what's "important" to him as long as they've got his signature and Conrad Hilton's. He sounded kind of spoiled and petulant when he said that, didn't he? And I thought Bert talked to him as if he were a child. Only HIS parenting skills are better than Don's because he got his very firm point across without denigrating Don at all, the way Don did to Peggy. But they both said the same thing: Don't get above yourself. Show some gratitude. Work harder and then we'll see.

@Melba: I’ve been trying to be magnanimous by letting it slide or--to employ a Draperism--changing the conversation when you don’t like what is being said. But strangely, you continue to stamp your foot and demand off-topic explanations from strangers in an anonymous public forum. So let me try being direct.

In my line of work, we understand the clear meaning of words. I understood that you were not apologizing; maybe that’s not in your nature. I initially accepted that you may not have ‘intended’ to call me a liar, even if that was the clear import of your words. Any court understands that when you claim a statement is a lie, or to use your words, ‘more deceptive than an outright lie,’ then you are also necessarily claiming that the person making that statement is a liar. If you don’t understand the clear meaning of the words you wrote, then I can’t really help you. If your writing skills are lacking, perhaps you should pay closer scrutiny to your words before you hit ‘submit.’

Now, however, I get the vibe that you fully understood what you wrote, but just refuse to admit fault though you got caught with your hand in the cookie jar.

You can’t go around throwing stones at people, telling them not to engage in name-calling when in fact you do it, too. Now, not only have you called me liar for simply expressing a political opinion (an inappropriate act demonstrated so well recently by Rep. Joe Wilson), you have now taken my self-deprecating comment (my attempt to deflect your defensiveness) and redirected it in your own malicious way. So now twice in as many days you’ve engaged in a practice you continue to deny.

I may be asking too much here, but I’ll try it anyway: Just let it go.

.....fifty-two.....While it didn't bother me much that Don dressed Peggy down (yet - it hits me differently each time I watch), I did recoil significantly at Bert's words to Don in this episode.

He used almost exactly the same words (was it the end of S1?) when he was pumping Don with compliments, and promoting him (socially) to the Board of Directors of The Museum of American Folk Arts, if I'm not mistaken.

This time, the words were the same, but the tone was seriously chilling and ominous.

BTW.....Whatever happened with that big social and philanthropic development?

We haven't seen one indication that Don has been involved in any charity events yet, or hob-nobbed with any high society types, and that was actually where I predicted the hot waters would rise for him.

As I had said then, Bert might not care about Don's duel identity, but someone in that crowd surely would.

.....NeverNot.....Is that Trudy's Valentine's candy?

(Shouldn't the box be empty? Ha!)

DDesq: Your specious arguements to the contrary, stating as I did in a forum argument that a particular idea/political stance (and in this instance a very old idea) is a half truth and more deceptive than a lie, is NOT an automatic claim that the person advancing the argument is a liar. Rather, it is indicating that I think the person is mistaken or wrong in their adopting and/or advancing that idea. Such was the substance and intent of my remarks.

And I’d like to note that really, anything any one of us says is de facto our opinion unless otherwise stated.

I understand perfectly the meaning of my words I wrote... They are clear except to those who wish to misinterpret them for their own purposes. As you say, in your line of work you “understand the clear meaning of words”, and one could fairly add -all the better the ways to use them for mis-direction.

I have to wonder about your citing “what any court understands”... noting first that we are not in a court, and more to the point, WERE not. (Had we been, the thread in question would have appeared very different indeed). Noting second that it is more than a little self serving to want to take an argument in a cyber forum and subject it to the semantic rules of a court after the fact.

But it seems that in spite of how clearly I explain it, you choose to create and cling to your own (negative) interpretation. Which creation conveniently allows you to take umbrage, play the victim, accuse me, and then dodge taking responsibility for that false accusation. Cyber talk is so interesting... people can say the crappiest things to one, followed with “oh just let it go...”

If referring to a nonexistent apology and making an ambiguous self deprecating remark was your way of being “magnanimous” and “letting things slide”, I have to wonder again about your definitions, and their mis-use.

Name-calling...again, what are you talking about?? I did not call you (or anyone) a name... I agreed that the name you called yourself appeared to fit. But it now appears to have been misdirection - you actually didn’t mean what you said - it was for effect. Ergo, you can allege that I called you a name. Neat trick.

As to the rest...apparently you’ve nothing more substantive to say, and so resort to hiding behind further misrepresentations (confusing “demand” with the phrase “want to know”), gratuitous insults ( J. Wilson), accusations and projections (“stone throwing” “foot stamping”, cookie jars, etc.). Accordingly, there is no point to attempt further conversation. Your quote from the other thread: “ There are some men you cannot reach.” Selah