The Mentalist Implodes (SPOILERS)

[KalElFan]

Last season's finale boxed itself in with the cliffhanger. They
should have ended the Red John substory then and cut their
losses. They didn't, and kept digging a hole at various points
this season.

This season finale they didn't wait for the cliffhanger ending to
further bury themselves. They started from the ending last ep
and put up a "six months later" sign to start the finale. Then
they stopped digging and instead used explosives. When the
show was last seen it was rocketing down to China.

How could Jane or any of the team ever believe that Red John
would fall for this idiot plan? Last season Jane alone killed that
disciple who turned out to be a very bad guy. This season he
got the CBI head killed and the CBI team were accomplices.

I guess we might get the CBI leader retconned as a disciple in
an attempt to avoid season 5 being their last. Or maybe the
FBI lady is revealed as the 147th disciple, and she killed the
CBI leader, disciple 146 or not. Then Jane and the rest of the
CBI continue merrily along, still a bunch of buffoons, just a
bigger bunch of buffoons buffooning exponentially. These
clowns are back in four months, but move to Sunday at 10.

Might be a good time to take a six months hiatus from this
this, and rerun the hiatus until whenever it gets canned.

[Ian J. Ball]

In article <a1m12...@mid.individual.net>,

"KalElFan" <kale...@yanospamhoo.com> wrote:

> I guess we might get the CBI leader retconned as a disciple in
> an attempt to avoid season 5 being their last.

I'm almost sure this is what will happen.

On Rady's end, he's picked up on a new Fall show, so he needed to get
off "The Mentalist".

--
"We're gonna need a lot of therapy." - the character Rachel in "Bunnyman"
(named 1 of the 5 Worst Horror Films of 2011 by 28DaysLaterAnalysis.com!!)

[Artis]

On May 18, 11:28 am, "Ian J. Ball" <ijball-NO_S...@mac.invalid> wrote:
> In article <a1m12lFd...@mid.individual.net>,

>
>  "KalElFan" <kalel...@yanospamhoo.com> wrote:
> > I guess we might get the CBI leader retconned as a disciple in
> > an attempt to avoid season 5 being their last.
>
> I'm almost sure this is what will happen.
>
> On Rady's end, he's picked up on a new Fall show, so he needed to get
> off "The Mentalist".
>
> --
> "We're gonna need a lot of therapy." - the character Rachel in "Bunnyman"
> (named 1 of the 5 Worst Horror Films of 2011 by 28DaysLaterAnalysis.com!!)

The latest CBI boss just got killed by Red John on the season finale.
Apparently Red John is not just some nut job,
he is a wealthy nut job with a limo.

[EGK]

On Fri, 18 May 2012 16:40:59 -0700 (PDT), Artis <Forward...@Inbox.com>
wrote:

The Mentalist jumped the shark for me as soon as they ruined the season 3
finale by saying "oops, it's not Red John that Jane killed after all". Now
they're just jerking the audience around and milking it.

[Icebreaker]

"EGK" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:62pdr7dfveogqltnt...@4ax.com...

Yep, and this last jerk off is even more insulting. How the writers thought
this was good is beyond my ability to comprehend. This whole season has
sucked. The writing has been very poor.

[suzeeq]

You can rent them by the hour for a few hours...

[Ian J. Ball]

On May 18, 6:13 pm, "Icebreaker" <icebrea...@someplaceoranother.com>
wrote:

>
> Yep, and this last jerk off is even more insulting. How the writers thought
> this was good is beyond my ability to comprehend. This whole season has
> sucked. The writing has been very poor.

Totally agree. This current (now just finished) season was very, very
poor. A few episodes were saved by the guest casting, but this season
has been total crap. The 'Red John' stuff really sucked (the finale
was maybe the only exception...). They completely *dropped the ball*
on the Grace Van Pelt arc. The Summer arc with Cho was a mostly
terrible idea. The Rigsby has a baby stuff was a snooze. And they
never moved the Lisbon-Jane relationship along at all (if anything, it
actually regressed...).

I will give them through next season to turn this around. But I'm not
particularly hopeful, and I suspect I'll be dropping "The Mentalist"
after next season.

Which is too bad - when this show began, it had a heck of a lot of
promise.

[Remysun]

On May 18, 7:40 pm, Artis <ForwardProg...@Inbox.com> wrote:

> The latest CBI boss just got killed by Red John on the season finale.
> Apparently Red John is not just some nut job,
> he is a wealthy nut job with a limo.

Shouldn't that reduce the pool of suspects to 1%?

[Robin Miller]

I think The Mentalist is a show that people watch because they enjoy the
characters. At least, that's its appeal to me. I'm not really watching
for the plots, so long as they're reasonably sensible.

I tend to see The Mentalist as a somewhat more serious version of
Monk--a low-key cops-and-robbers show that's more enjoyable than
interesting, if that makes sense.

--Robin

[EGK]

On Sat, 19 May 2012 03:25:47 -0400, Robin Miller <compl...@invalid.com>
wrote:

I think you're right but it's exactly why they should have stuck to the
season 3 finale with Jane killing Red John. Get it the hell over with
already so people can enjoy the character interaction and hopefully
character growth. As Ian noted, the writing and character interaction this
year was pretty lame. Then they ratchet up Red John for another season
finale. It's so obvious it's just a ratings ploy at this point and it's
becoming annoying.

You mention Monk. While that was much lighter and comedic in general, it's
ironic that his search for his wife's killer was handled better. They
didn't make that killer a super villain who toyed with Monk every season.

[Frater Mus]

On 05/18/2012 07:10 PM, EGK wrote:

> they're just jerking the audience around and milking it.

I must be watching it wrong.

--
http://www.mousetrap.net/mouse/
written offline, synced later

[William December Starr]

In article <6g2fr75kf8jtk1had...@4ax.com>,

EGK <m...@privacy.net> said:

> You mention Monk. While that was much lighter and comedic in
> general, it's ironic that his search for his wife's killer was
> handled better. They didn't make that killer a super villain who
> toyed with Monk every season.

I gave up on "Monk" around halfway through its run. How _did_ the
saga of Who Killed His Wife And Why end, anyway?

-- wds

[Horace LaBadie]

In article <jp892l$rj8$1...@panix3.panix.com>,

Trudy had an affair with a powerful guy before she married Monk, and she
had a daughter. She was killed to keep his secret. Monk solved the case
and met the grown daughter. And Sharona married Disher, who moved to NJ
to become a chief of police.

[Ian J. Ball]

In article <jp7htr$ch8$1...@dont-email.me>,

Robin Miller <compl...@invalid.com> wrote:

> Ian J. Ball wrote:
> > On May 18, 6:13 pm, "Icebreaker"<icebrea...@someplaceoranother.com>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Yep, and this last jerk off is even more insulting. How the writers thought
> >> this was good is beyond my ability to comprehend. This whole season has
> >> sucked. The writing has been very poor.
> >
> > Totally agree. This current (now just finished) season was very, very
> > poor. A few episodes were saved by the guest casting, but this season
> > has been total crap. The 'Red John' stuff really sucked (the finale
> > was maybe the only exception...). They completely *dropped the ball*
> > on the Grace Van Pelt arc. The Summer arc with Cho was a mostly
> > terrible idea. The Rigsby has a baby stuff was a snooze. And they
> > never moved the Lisbon-Jane relationship along at all (if anything, it
> > actually regressed...).
> >
> > I will give them through next season to turn this around. But I'm not
> > particularly hopeful, and I suspect I'll be dropping "The Mentalist"
> > after next season.
> >
> > Which is too bad - when this show began, it had a heck of a lot of
> > promise.
>
> I think The Mentalist is a show that people watch because they enjoy the
> characters. At least, that's its appeal to me. I'm not really watching
> for the plots, so long as they're reasonably sensible.

Yes, and my point is that the current season trashed all the characters
(incl. (esp.?) Jane).

For example, I've been waiting four seasons now for an episode with Van
Pelt's full backstory (we got earlier ones on Cho and Rigsby) and they
still haven't provided one.

And after this season, I think the Lisbon-Jane relationship no longer
makes any sense.

This show is a mess. They really need to fix this next season.

[Horace LaBadie]

In article
<ijball-NO_SPAM-ABE...@news.eternal-september.org>,

"Ian J. Ball" <ijball-...@mac.invalid> wrote:

>
> And after this season, I think the Lisbon-Jane relationship no longer
> makes any sense.

There was a lot of hand-holding going on, though.

[Dano]

"EGK" wrote in message news:6g2fr75kf8jtk1had...@4ax.com...

=============================================

I completely understand that feeling folks have about the whole Red John
"theme" as many call it. But it really IS the underlying reason for Jane's
whole reason for being. I'm not sure I agree with them for playing it this
way, but I think I understand why. They feel they need this to keep from
becoming a plain old, vanilla police procedural. As long as they keep Jane
"broken" they have an excuse for his often bizarre behavior as well as his
general dickishness. I agree though that it's past time to put this
increasingly far fetched subplot to rest. The bigger the conspiracy, the
harder it is to "buy into" for me. SOMEONE would screw up and reveal the
mastermind by now. Too many co-conspirators to believe otherwise for this
viewer.

[anim8rFSK]

In article <jp892l$rj8$1...@panix3.panix.com>,
wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:

Oh dear God. It was *so* horrible.

All the clues, all the mysteries, everything we'd learned over the years
was thrown away. The fat guy in prison, the trip to New York, every
loose end, had nothing to do with it.

There was this judge that we'd never seen before (and since he was the
head guest star he was obviously guilty) and he'd knocked up Trudy
before she met Monk, and there was baby that was long dead.

Trudy's ghost pops up and tells Monk to move on. Monk gets poisoned and
has mere days to live. Monk has an unopened Xmas gift from Trudy which
turns out to have the clews he needed if he'd ever just unwrapped it; a
video tape where she tells him who she's meeting and why and that the
guy will probably kill her (turns out Trudy wasn't all that bright).
Judge, exposed (since nobody gives a crap he knocked some girl up 20
years ago, it turns out he killed the midwife too, to keep a secret that
still nobody gives a crap about), kills himself. Randy marries Sharona
(who IIRC wasn't actually in the ep) and moves to New Jersey. Turns out
Trudy's secret daughter is alive and thrilled to meet Monk and they
become a mini family, even though they're no relation, and in fact he
just hounded her real father to death.

The End.

--
So we're all agreed that Clod is as stupid as Charlie Sheen?

[Hunter]

On Fri, 18 May 2012 09:28:26 -0700, "Ian J. Ball"
<ijball-...@mac.invalid> wrote:

>In article <a1m12...@mid.individual.net>,
> "KalElFan" <kale...@yanospamhoo.com> wrote:
>
>> I guess we might get the CBI leader retconned as a disciple in
>> an attempt to avoid season 5 being their last.
>
>I'm almost sure this is what will happen.

-----
I know some people had him as a disciple of Red John but that is
highly doubtful since he was tied up that is a good indicator he
didn't want to die. We know Red John disciples are willing to die for
him-or her. They are even suicidal, so there wouldn't have been a need
for them to duct tape him to the back seat and have a walkie talkie
around his neck. The guy was innocent. The question is what would this
do to Jane's conscience? Last year he can say with truth that the guy
he shot was a monster himself so no waste but the CBI boss was truly
an innocent person and yes he got the CBI team to be complicit, the
FBI as well in the killing. I don't know how Jane is going to get his
credibility with anyone back.

Jane said that his plan would work because he thought Red John would
believe because RJ wants to believe. Turns out Jane was talking about
himself.
(snip)

------>Hunter

"No man in the wrong can stand up against
a fellow that's in the right and keeps on acomin'."

-----William J. McDonald
Captain, Texas Rangers from 1891 to 1907

[Adam H. Kerman]

Red John has been such a horrid plot from the beginning, dropping
it without further mention would be the right call.

Actually, dropping it with the show's creator making an on air
apology to the show's viewers would be the right call.

s
p
e
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n

s
p
a
c
e

I think the FBI agent is Red John's disciple. It just seems like
the type of thing the show would do, considering that she delayed
Lisbon's team and actually fired the kill shot.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Hunter <buffh...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>"Ian J. Ball" <ijball-...@mac.invalid> wrote:
>>"KalElFan" <kale...@yanospamhoo.com> wrote:

>>>I guess we might get the CBI leader retconned as a disciple in
>>>an attempt to avoid season 5 being their last.

>>I'm almost sure this is what will happen.

>I know some people had him as a disciple of Red John but that is
>highly doubtful since he was tied up that is a good indicator he
>didn't want to die. We know Red John disciples are willing to die for
>him-or her. They are even suicidal, so there wouldn't have been a need
>for them to duct tape him to the back seat and have a walkie talkie
>around his neck. The guy was innocent. The question is what would this
>do to Jane's conscience? Last year he can say with truth that the guy
>he shot was a monster himself so no waste but the CBI boss was truly
>an innocent person and yes he got the CBI team to be complicit, the
>FBI as well in the killing. I don't know how Jane is going to get his
>credibility with anyone back.

>Jane said that his plan would work because he thought Red John would
>believe because RJ wants to believe. Turns out Jane was talking about
>himself.
>(snip)

Oh, shut the fuck up, Hunter. I don't need your idiotic, moronic apologies
to rub salt in the wound of having watched this hour of awful television.

Just shut the fuck up. The CBI boss certainly could have been Red John
until the very moment the writers decided it was more convenient to make
him a victim. It's been speculated that it was Aunjanue Ellis and
Gregory Itzin. In earlier season, I was hoping for Itzin, just to justify
this fine actor's participation in a thankless role.

Maybe it's Lisbon. Maybe it's Jane, himself, schizophrenic. Maybe it's
Jane's evil twin or long lost father.

Whoever it is, it's sure to be stupid and horrid because let me be the
first to point out since it was made perfectly obvious to the rest of
us in the pilot: There is no Red John story arc. There is no story that
anyone would recognize as a story as it lacks a beginning, a middle,
and there won't be an end.

Red John has been nothing but a plot device. Red John is Redjac, the idea
of an eternal serial killer who kills by proxy, from a Star Trek episode
we were just discussing. It's not a character.

Just shut the fuck up, Hunter. This episode left everyone in a bad mood
and no one wants to hear your crap.

[Adam H. Kerman]

suzeeq <su...@imbris.com> wrote:
>Artis wrote:
>>On May 18, 11:28 am, "Ian J. Ball" <ijball-NO_S...@mac.invalid> wrote:
>>>"KalElFan" <kalel...@yanospamhoo.com> wrote:

>>>>I guess we might get the CBI leader retconned as a disciple in
>>>>an attempt to avoid season 5 being their last.

>>>I'm almost sure this is what will happen.

>>>On Rady's end, he's picked up on a new Fall show, so he needed to get
>>>off "The Mentalist".

>>The latest CBI boss just got killed by Red John on the season finale.
>>Apparently Red John is not just some nut job,
>>he is a wealthy nut job with a limo.

>You can rent them by the hour for a few hours...

Chelsea car hires. See Elsie the proprieter.

[Adam H. Kerman]

That was just the plot on that episode.

[Adam H. Kerman]

EGK <m...@privacy.net> wrote:

> You mention Monk. While that was much lighter and comedic in general, it's
>ironic that his search for his wife's killer was handled better. They
>didn't make that killer a super villain who toyed with Monk every season.

Monk's wife's murder plot was equally bad, if not worse, than Red John.
No two aspects of the plot as shown fit together. The writers didn't even
try to have it make any sense.

[Robin Miller]

Adam H. Kerman wrote:

>
> Just shut the fuck up, Hunter. This episode left everyone in a bad mood
> and no one wants to hear your crap.

Adam, why do you write things like this? I know you dislike Hunter's
long explanations for why, in his view, something made sense or could be
interpreted differently. And, yes, he goes to unheard-of-lengths
sometimes. I still remember his post about timing how long it would take
to change his clothes and run down a hospital hall. It's amazing that
someone would put that much effort into trying to devise an explanation
for a sequence that was shown on TV.

But he doesn't use vulgarities like you do, nor does he make you either
watch the shows in question or read his posts. I think this kind of
vitriol is really out of place, at least in this newsgroup.

And, yes, this was, in many ways, a truly horrific episode of The
Mentalist. I may never be able to get the image of the four of them,
sitting handcuffed on the curb, out of my mind. That was an image from a
sixth-grade writer.

But who cares? It's only a TV show.

What is important is the kind of dialog we have in this newsgroup. I may
be a very occasional participant, but I feel this is important to say.

--Robin

[Adam H. Kerman]

Robin Miller <compl...@invalid.com> wrote:
>Adam H. Kerman wrote:

>>Just shut the fuck up, Hunter. This episode left everyone in a bad mood
>>and no one wants to hear your crap.

>Adam, why do you write things like this?

I don't believe for a minute that he enjoys bad television any more
than I do, but I won't be told by another viewer, an unrequested spokesman
for the show's producer, what I'm supposed to enjoy and what I'm supposed
to get out of an episode.

When Hunter tells us his own opinion, why he enjoys viewing something,
or why he disliked it, those articles are readable. On occassion, I've
even complimented what he's written.

>I know you dislike Hunter's long explanations for why, in his view,
>something made sense or could be interpreted differently.

I don't agree that we are getting Hunter's opinion. Hunter is giving us
what he believes is the producer's opinion. He all too often states that
what we see in a later episode was set up in an earlier episode, always
obvious to the viewer with perfect hindsight, always able to ignore any
contradictory plot points along the way.

>But he doesn't use vulgarities like you do, . . .

That's the way I write sometimes. It amuses me to go totally over the top.

>What is important is the kind of dialog we have in this newsgroup. I may
>be a very occasional participant, but I feel this is important to say.

But people find me quite objectionable even when I've said nothing vulgar,
particularly Hunter. It seems not to matter.

[tinydancer]

On Sat, 19 May 2012 18:03:22 -0400, Robin Miller
<compl...@invalid.com> wrote:

>Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>
>>
>> Just shut the fuck up, Hunter. This episode left everyone in a bad mood
>> and no one wants to hear your crap.
>
>
>Adam, why do you write things like this?

Because he's a crotchety, old curmudgeon? I guess people are much
ruder when they can hide behind a computer screen, but I wouldn't put
it past him to act this way in real life, too.

>But he [Hunter] doesn't use vulgarities like you do, nor does he make you either

>watch the shows in question or read his posts. I think this kind of
>vitriol is really out of place, at least in this newsgroup.

I agree. I don't do much more than lurk these days, but I still enjoy
the community spirit here. Thanks for saying this.

[Adam H. Kerman]

tinydancer <n...@email.here> wrote:
>Robin Miller <compl...@invalid.com> wrote:
>>Adam H. Kerman wrote:

>>>Just shut the fuck up, Hunter. This episode left everyone in a bad mood
>>>and no one wants to hear your crap.

>>Adam, why do you write things like this?

>Because he's a crotchety, old curmudgeon? I guess people are much
>ruder when they can hide behind a computer screen, but I wouldn't put
>it past him to act this way in real life, too.

I've never encountered Usenet personalities in real life, so no opportunity
to lose my cool in a Usenetty way. Sorry to disappoint, but I'm not any
different in Real Life (tm). Since everyone knows where I am and how to
find me, Usenet doesn't make for much of a hideout.

>>But he [Hunter] doesn't use vulgarities like you do, nor does he make
>>you either watch the shows in question or read his posts. I think this
>>kind of vitriol is really out of place, at least in this newsgroup.

>I agree. I don't do much more than lurk these days, but I still enjoy
>the community spirit here. Thanks for saying this.

Similarly, the two of you are free to compliment Hunter if you don't
agree with me.

I'll just sit here quietly waiting for you two to do just that.

[Robin Miller]

Adam H. Kerman wrote:

>
> But people find me quite objectionable even when I've said nothing vulgar,
> particularly Hunter. It seems not to matter.

Well, there are actually more subtle ways of telling people that they're
full of shit.

:-)

--Robin

[Captain Infinity]

Once Upon A Time,

{sob} It's such a beautiful ending, it makes me cry just remembering it.
Truly one of the most moving episodes in all of television history.


**
Captain Infinity

[Hunter]

On Fri, 18 May 2012 16:40:59 -0700 (PDT), Artis

<Forward...@Inbox.com> wrote:

>On May 18, 11:28=A0am, "Ian J. Ball" <ijball-NO_S...@mac.invalid> wrote:
>> In article <a1m12lFd...@mid.individual.net>,

>>
>> =A0"KalElFan" <kalel...@yanospamhoo.com> wrote:
>> > I guess we might get the CBI leader retconned as a disciple in
>> > an attempt to avoid season 5 being their last.
>>
>> I'm almost sure this is what will happen.
>>
>> On Rady's end, he's picked up on a new Fall show, so he needed to get
>> off "The Mentalist".
>>

>> --
>> "We're gonna need a lot of therapy." - the character Rachel in "Bunnyman"

>> (named 1 of the 5 Worst Horror Films of 2011 by 28DaysLaterAnalysis.com!!=
>)

>
>The latest CBI boss just got killed by Red John on the season finale.
>Apparently Red John is not just some nut job,
>he is a wealthy nut job with a limo.

----
He has to be with all the resources he or she has access to-unless it
was a rental. :-)

[Ian J. Ball]

On May 19, 2:30 pm, "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:

I hope not - if she's the Red John disciple, it'd pretty much be the
last Red John straw for me, and I think I'd flush the show on the
spot.

They'd better not be that mindnumbingly obvious...

[Adam H. Kerman]

Subtle doesn't work on Usenet.

[anim8rFSK]

In article <jp9sqa$va9$1...@news.albasani.net>,

"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:

What are you trying to say?

[William December Starr]

In article <anim8rfsk-C967A...@news.easynews.com>,

anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> said:

> Trudy's ghost pops up and tells Monk to move on. Monk gets
> poisoned and has mere days to live. Monk has an unopened Xmas
> gift from Trudy which turns out to have the clews he needed if
> he'd ever just unwrapped it; a video tape where she tells him who
> she's meeting and why and that the guy will probably kill her
> (turns out Trudy wasn't all that bright). Judge, exposed (since
> nobody gives a crap he knocked some girl up 20 years ago, it turns
> out he killed the midwife too, to keep a secret that still nobody
> gives a crap about), kills himself. Randy marries Sharona (who
> IIRC wasn't actually in the ep) and moves to New Jersey. Turns
> out Trudy's secret daughter is alive and thrilled to meet Monk and
> they become a mini family, even though they're no relation, and in
> fact he just hounded her real father to death.
>
> The End.

And then Monk died from the poison?

-- wds

[anim8rFSK]

In article <jpb58t$14j$1...@panix3.panix.com>,

wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:

No, they cured him along the way; Natalie noticed it was hidden in his
wipes. But much like the evil bad guy's crime being paternity, nobody
much cared.

[Mason Barge]

No reason to get so nasty about it!

[Hunter]

On Sun, 20 May 2012 11:13:59 -0700, anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net>
wrote:

---
I wouldn't say cured him but resolving the case and killing the man
made him much less ACD than he was when he was in constant depression
over Trudy. He has recovered enough to get back on the force. Monk was
always ACD even when he was on the force but the tragedy of Trudy made
it pathological due to the guilt he felt to the point he had to be let
go.

Now he probably still won't shake hands with you but he doesn't have
to wipe everything down LOL!

[KalElFan]

"Hunter (Hunter)" wrote in message
news:4fb7f4b0...@news.optonline.net...

> On Fri, 18 May 2012 09:28:26 -0700, "Ian J. Ball"
> <ijball-...@mac.invalid> wrote:
>
>> In article <a1m12...@mid.individual.net>,
>> "KalElFan" <kale...@yanospamhoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I guess we might get the CBI leader retconned as a disciple in
>>> an attempt to avoid season 5 being their last.
>>
>> I'm almost sure this is what will happen.
>

> I know some people had him as a disciple of Red John but that is
> highly doubtful since he was tied up that is a good indicator he
> didn't want to die. We know Red John disciples are willing to die
> for him-or her. They are even suicidal, so there wouldn't have
> been a need for them to duct tape him to the back seat and have

> a walkie talkie around his neck...

Sure there was. There was no way Red John wanted to appear in
person, unless and until he was 100% sure Jane had turned. He
thought that was a remote possibility, but he wanted to believe
it might be possible and so he had to check it out. So he orders
his disciple, CBI Leader, to sub for him with a voice link.

Of course like any disciple he agrees.

To ensure the disciple's own voice, movements, mannerisms, etc.
don't give away that he's not Red John, he's immobilized with duct
tape. Red John or his girlfriend could have told CBI Leader this was
the rationale, and that he'd be freed after the operation worked or
did not. If it worked, i.e. the extreme longshot that Jane really had
killed Lisbon came through, CBI Leader gets freed of the duct tape.
He smiles at Patrick, shakes his hand and says something like "On
behalf of our mutual boss Red John, welcome to the team!"

If the 99%+ probablility came through that it was a melon or the like
in the box, CBI Leader is told Jane will lose two fingers and the limo
will ride off, again CBI Leader being cut loose of the duct tape.

So CBI Leader is not only fine playing along, he's honored as a Red
John disciple and eager to see what the outcome is.

An alternative route is CBI Leader is never told about the duct tape,
just that he's going to stand in for Red John in a darkened back seat,
or just that he has to attend a meeting with Red John's girlfriend or
whatever other pretext. Then he's killed. Red John had tired of him,
or was angry with him, or he'd outlived his usefulness, or was good
show kill fodder no matter what the outcome. So he had CBI leader
killed right after he reported as ordered, and he was propped up in
the back seat of the limo before his corpse started stinking.

So there are multiple reasons the duct tape doesn't in the least
refute the theory that CBI Leader was a Red John disciple. If
anything it supports it, and the best retcon excuse for Jane is that
he knew CBI Leader was a disciple at least six months prior. That's
why he pulled CBI Leader's strings and got him incensed to the point
of firing rather than just suspending Jane. Jane knew CBI Leader
would report that back to his master Red John, and so it provided
a legitimate pretext for the start-up of Jane's six-month "Descent"
long con.

It also explains CBI Leader's interest in Jane during that talk with
Lisbon, the baloney about wanting him back and probing what
Lisbon knew and how she felt. Then he readily spills that to the
FBI lady, because he and Red John probably want her to delay
any counter-operation by the CBI team. Sure enough she does
and it almost wrecks everything.

The baloney about Red John having a mole in FBI, may also be
a lie to throw Jane and CBI off the track. Red John's mole was
in CBI this time, the CBI Leader. He was able to get him in due
to the heavy turnover the last few years. But he points to the
FBI because he had one there before (Van Pelt's boyfriend)
and he thinks it'll help deflect from CBI Leader.

[KalElFan]

"Ian J. Ball" wrote in message
news:ijball-NO_SPAM-21F...@news.eternal-september.org...

> In article <a1m12...@mid.individual.net>,
> "KalElFan" <kale...@yanospamhoo.com> wrote:
>
>> I guess we might get the CBI leader retconned as a disciple in
>> an attempt to avoid season 5 being their last.
>
> I'm almost sure this is what will happen.

Short of a dream reset, it's the only way to get Jane and the CBI
crew off the hook for his death. Not legally necessarily though
I think even that would be in play with some sort of criminal
negligence causing death or similar charges against all of them.
We saw the trial of Jane this season's premiere, so I think it's
the last kind of thing the show needs again. So it is another
reason to reveal CBI Leader as a disciple. No way the DA will
want any part of trying to prosecute a dirty cop's death, and
the FBI Gal firing the shots makes it even easier to pass on.

But in terms of character destruction and audience perception
of it, the reality of television ratings and a show's reputation
for good vs. uber-stupid writing, it puts Jane & Co. at an all-
time low right now if the CBI Leader was clean. That has to
be completely turned around in the season 5 premiere, and
even then season 5 may still be its last.

> On Rady's end, he's picked up on a new Fall show, so he needed
> to get off "The Mentalist".

There seems to be a tradition now, pretty much all four seasons
IIRC and in one case it may have been two in one season, that the
CBI leader is dead or otherwise out the door. None of them were
Red John disciples though, that we know of. The heavy turnover
did give Red John the opportunity to get his guy in this time though,
they're just wait until next season's premiere to reveal he was a
mole.

[KalElFan]

"Ian J. Ball" wrote in message

news:ijball-NO_SPAM-ABE...@news.eternal-september.org...

> And after this season, I think the Lisbon-Jane relationship no
> longer makes any sense.

They never did anything much with it. They also seemed to intentionally
nuke the Rigsby and Van Pelt one. I think that combo pointlessness of
both romance pairs, and also the one-shot this season with Cho, has been
part of the many mistakes. It gets tiresome and bleeds viewers rather
than holds them. If they don't get the right retcon of this second finale
debacle in a row in next season's premiere, I think it's moot whether
they try to fix the romances or not.

But if we do get the right retcon, they did plant the "Love you" line of
dialogue in there, and Lisbon's reaction. So there is potential to advance
the relationship in tandem with closing in on Red John and then getting
him whenever the series finale is.

They have a season to do it because I think odds are season 5 will be
its last. If they really ace the retcon though, and if all their existing
base checks out the premiere and sees that in September, and if some
new viewers come on board especially female from The Good Wife's
lead-in, and if 666 Park Avenue up against it on ABC is weak... well,
it's a longshot but maybe they'd get a season 6. The cast is signed
for seven seasons, and if it makes it by 5 it might make it to 7. It'll
mean they did ace the retcon this September.

> This show is a mess. They really need to fix this next season.

Yep, in episode 1 it needs to be apparent they've done that. The
viewership needs to be completely wowed by Jane. I'll add that
they also have to stop fueling the Jekyll/Hyde nonsense. A few
posts or talkback comments I ran across via Google insist that the
voice on the radio was Baker's trying to disguise it. In other words,
either Jane is Red John, or Red John is messing with Jane by using
some technology based on Jane's voice. Maybe come out and
make it the latter.

For example have the show confirm it by having the girlfriend/
disciple at first try to convince Jane that he's Red John. But then
some evidence is found or she gets broken and the show's canon,
at least, is that he's not. I think it's further damaging the show
to have this speculatioin persist, and is the last thing it needs
when it'll be on the verge of getting canned soon. The ridicule
will be worse.

[KalElFan]

"Ian J. Ball" wrote in message

news:6724b524-e4a7-401a...@n5g2000pbg.googlegroups.com...

Yeah, I think that the key is for now-dead CBI Leader, not FBI Gal,
to be the disciple. It's more comedy skit fodder if CBI and FBI
moles seem to start outnumbering legitimate law enforcement
folk. As it is, we just have the one FBI mole now dead, and now
we'd have the one CBI dead. There was one prison guard IIRC.

FBI Gal seems more like a busybody who suspected Jane is a
disciple, or even Red John himself. She was obsessed in her
own right with trying to smoke Jane out. Maybe she'll now be
suspected because of Red John smearing the FBI with another
supposed mole, and maybe she'll feel guilty about killing CBI
Leader, and maybe Jane's stock goes up as he wows everyone
with all he knew and knows and has learned with the whole
long con. End result Annoying FBI Gal becomes at least a
Somewhat Not Annoying character in her six episodes or
whatever.

[tinydancer]

On Sat, 19 May 2012 23:55:07 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<a...@chinet.com> wrote:

>tinydancer <n...@email.here> wrote:
>>Robin Miller <compl...@invalid.com> wrote:
>>>Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>
>>>>Just shut the fuck up, Hunter. This episode left everyone in a bad mood
>>>>and no one wants to hear your crap.
>
>>>Adam, why do you write things like this?
>
>>Because he's a crotchety, old curmudgeon? I guess people are much
>>ruder when they can hide behind a computer screen, but I wouldn't put
>>it past him to act this way in real life, too.
>
>I've never encountered Usenet personalities in real life, so no opportunity
>to lose my cool in a Usenetty way. Sorry to disappoint, but I'm not any
>different in Real Life (tm).

As I'd surmised, so there's no disappointment in your confirmation.

>>>But he [Hunter] doesn't use vulgarities like you do, nor does he make
>>>you either watch the shows in question or read his posts. I think this
>>>kind of vitriol is really out of place, at least in this newsgroup.
>
>>I agree. I don't do much more than lurk these days, but I still enjoy
>>the community spirit here. Thanks for saying this.
>
>Similarly, the two of you are free to compliment Hunter if you don't
>agree with me.

Way to miss the point. The opposite of being rude/vulgar isn't to
compliment someone, it's simply being civil to them.

[Adam H. Kerman]

tinydancer <n...@email.here> wrote:
>"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>tinydancer <n...@email.here> wrote:
>>>Robin Miller <compl...@invalid.com> wrote:
>>>>Adam H. Kerman wrote:

>>>>>Just shut the fuck up, Hunter. This episode left everyone in a bad mood
>>>>>and no one wants to hear your crap.

>>>>Adam, why do you write things like this?

>>>Because he's a crotchety, old curmudgeon? I guess people are much
>>>ruder when they can hide behind a computer screen, but I wouldn't put
>>>it past him to act this way in real life, too.

>>I've never encountered Usenet personalities in real life, so no opportunity
>>to lose my cool in a Usenetty way. Sorry to disappoint, but I'm not any
>>different in Real Life (tm).

>As I'd surmised, so there's no disappointment in your confirmation.

Now, now. That's beneath you. That's not quite what I said.

>>>>But he [Hunter] doesn't use vulgarities like you do, nor does he make
>>>>you either watch the shows in question or read his posts. I think this
>>>>kind of vitriol is really out of place, at least in this newsgroup.

>>>I agree. I don't do much more than lurk these days, but I still enjoy
>>>the community spirit here. Thanks for saying this.

>>Similarly, the two of you are free to compliment Hunter if you don't
>>agree with me.

>Way to miss the point. The opposite of being rude/vulgar isn't to
>compliment someone, it's simply being civil to them.

I was pointing out the underlying issue not being addressed.

Yeah, yeah, we all got it. "It's not what you say but the way you say it."

You're simply wrong. How someone says something is rather important
in imparting meaning.

Now, I didn't say "shit" to Hunter in followup; I said "crap". It's vulgar
either way. Robin did say "shit" to me in followup, wishing me to be more
subtle in my over-reactions to Hunter. You agree with Robin.

Either vulgarisms are acceptable in the right circumstances, or they aren't.
What you ignored is my followup to Robin, the main point of which is
Subtle doesn't work on Usenet. You accused me of hiding behind a computer
screen. I can use vulgar language in Real Life (tm) when necessary. It
just isn't necessary all that often, not being Usenet. There's more flexibility
in communicating in person than on Usenet.

Let me be the first to inform you that Usenet isn't Real Life.

[Remysun]

My DVR recording supposedly missed five minutes of the show. Somehow,
they were going to commercial as PJ hid from whoever was coming into
the church, telling Lisbon to wait for his signal, and when the show
was back, the plan was in motion, and he allegedly already kidnapped
Lisbon and shot Rigsby.

Anything I missed?

[Robin Miller]

Here's the thing, Adam. It is true that the inclusion of a curse word in
a sentence may be necessary to provide meaning, typically an emphasis,
that the sentence wouldn't have had otherwise. Witness the difference
between "How'd you pull that off?" and "How the fuck did you pull that
off?" The inclusion of the word "fuck" imparts an urgency, or a depth of
passion, that no other word quite conveys. This isn't the best example,
but I know from my own life that there are times in which there really
is no alternative to "fuck" used as emphasis in a sentence. I consider
this use of these kind of words to be legitimate, because the intent is
to convey meaning, rather than to use the word as a weapon against
another person.

Similarly, the expression "full of shit" conveys a meaning quite more
emphatic that "full of it." (But, BTW, I did not say "shit" "to you." I
used the expression "full of shit" in a conversion with you in order to
suggest that there are different ways of saying things. Conversely, had
I said that you (or anyone) was "full of shit," I would have been using
the word offensively, as a weapon, rather than to convey meaning.

And that's the point, that you used "fuck" as an offensive weapon
directed at Hunter. You told him to, in essence, fuck off. When a vulgar
word is used for meaning, it is not directed at anyone; it is a natural
part of the sentence. This is not a difficult distinction to make.

But that's not what you did. What you did was say some really nasty
things to Hunter in order to convey your anger at him. That's different,
and that's what I, at least, consider unacceptable in this forum. And,
on a personal level, I find that sort of thing really unpleasant to read.

Thanks for reading this,
Robin

[Obveeus]

"tinydancer" <n...@email.here> wrote:
> On Sat, 19 May 2012 18:03:22 -0400, Robin Miller
> <compl...@invalid.com> wrote:
>
>>Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Just shut the fuck up, Hunter. This episode left everyone in a bad mood
>>> and no one wants to hear your crap.
>>
>>Adam, why do you write things like this?
>
> Because he's a crotchety, old curmudgeon? I guess people are much
> ruder when they can hide behind a computer screen, but I wouldn't put
> it past him to act this way in real life, too.

There is the very real possibility that Adam has Tourette's Syndrome.

[BTR1701]

Tourette's manifests as involuntary vocal ticks, often of a profane nature.
I've never heard of someone with Tourette's being unable to control
*typing* profanity and insults.

It's more likely that Kermie is just a spectacular asshole.

[Obveeus]

"BTR1701" <atr...@mac.com> wrote:

> "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> There is the very real possibility that Adam has Tourette's Syndrome.
>
> Tourette's manifests as involuntary vocal ticks, often of a profane
> nature.
> I've never heard of someone with Tourette's being unable to control
> *typing* profanity and insults.

Perhaps it is a special form of Tourette's that kicks in when the person is
presented with a keyboard? If it can be properly documented and studied,
maybe some day it can be presented in the New England Journal of Medicine as
'Kerman's Syndrome'?

[Adam H. Kerman]

Robin Miller <compl...@invalid.com> wrote:

>And that's the point, that you used "fuck" as an offensive weapon
>directed at Hunter. You told him to, in essence, fuck off. When a vulgar
>word is used for meaning, it is not directed at anyone; it is a natural
>part of the sentence. This is not a difficult distinction to make.

>But that's not what you did. What you did was say some really nasty
>things to Hunter in order to convey your anger at him.

I was angry! Hunter tends to write the nastiest articles on this newsgroup,
although they are on topic. There is no bad writing on television. Viewers
are allowed to get from viewing nothing but what the writer/producer wants
the viewer to see, even though it contradicted what was seen before, even
though the character acted against motivation, even if the resolution was
mere convenient coincidence and not well plotted at all. Also, everything
in later episodes explains everything from previous episodes and is always
the proper conclusion of a proper story arc.

That attacks me as a television viewer.

Quite frankly, telling someone no one is interested in an unmoderated
newsgroup is the extreme reaction. "Shut up" and "fuck off" were there
for emphasis, to express how offended I was, because Hunter would have
misunderstood without them.

It's just wrong to use vulgar language when I don't mean to convey
a vulgar thought. If what I'm writing is vulgar, well, there is an
appropriate word to use.

I try to avoid using these vulgarities casually, unless I'm making an
obviously crude joke or reference. Too many people misuse vulgarities,
turning them into mild comments. Properly used, vulgar words are supposed
to slap you in the face. That's the point!

>That's different, and that's what I, at least, consider unacceptable in
>this forum. And, on a personal level, I find that sort of thing really
>unpleasant to read.

>Thanks for reading this,
>Robin

But how would anyone know you were truly offended unless you told me,
appropriately, to fuck off, as part of a devastating personal attack?
This is Usenet where subtlety doesn't work, so lurkers are going to take
this as a mild rebuke.

[Robin Miller]

Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> Robin Miller<compl...@invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> And that's the point, that you used "fuck" as an offensive weapon
>> directed at Hunter. You told him to, in essence, fuck off. When a vulgar
>> word is used for meaning, it is not directed at anyone; it is a natural
>> part of the sentence. This is not a difficult distinction to make.
>
>> But that's not what you did. What you did was say some really nasty
>> things to Hunter in order to convey your anger at him.
>
> I was angry! Hunter tends to write the nastiest articles on this newsgroup,
> although they are on topic. There is no bad writing on television. Viewers
> are allowed to get from viewing nothing but what the writer/producer wants
> the viewer to see, even though it contradicted what was seen before, even
> though the character acted against motivation, even if the resolution was
> mere convenient coincidence and not well plotted at all. Also, everything
> in later episodes explains everything from previous episodes and is always
> the proper conclusion of a proper story arc.
>
> That attacks me as a television viewer.

Adam, you're quite intelligent. You can't really believe what you've
written. A different understanding, or point of view, is not an attack.

>
> I try to avoid using these vulgarities casually, unless I'm making an
> obviously crude joke or reference. Too many people misuse vulgarities,
> turning them into mild comments. Properly used, vulgar words are supposed
> to slap you in the face. That's the point!

Oh, I understand that. I just don't think that's appropriate in a public
conversation in a newsgroup. If you want to talk to someone that way in
a private conversation, that's another matter.

--Robin

[Adam H. Kerman]

Robin Miller <compl...@invalid.com> wrote:
>Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>Robin Miller<compl...@invalid.com> wrote:

>>>And that's the point, that you used "fuck" as an offensive weapon
>>>directed at Hunter. You told him to, in essence, fuck off. When a vulgar
>>>word is used for meaning, it is not directed at anyone; it is a natural
>>>part of the sentence. This is not a difficult distinction to make.

>>>But that's not what you did. What you did was say some really nasty
>>>things to Hunter in order to convey your anger at him.

>>I was angry! Hunter tends to write the nastiest articles on this newsgroup,
>>although they are on topic. There is no bad writing on television. Viewers
>>are allowed to get from viewing nothing but what the writer/producer wants
>>the viewer to see, even though it contradicted what was seen before, even
>>though the character acted against motivation, even if the resolution was
>>mere convenient coincidence and not well plotted at all. Also, everything
>>in later episodes explains everything from previous episodes and is always
>>the proper conclusion of a proper story arc.

>>That attacks me as a television viewer.

>Adam, you're quite intelligent. You can't really believe what you've
>written. A different understanding, or point of view, is not an attack.

Plenty of people disagree with my opinions on Usenet, nearly everyone
at one time or another. I don't participate in Usenet for validation.

Hunter is... very different. Generally, he doesn't write from his
own perspective.

>>I try to avoid using these vulgarities casually, unless I'm making an
>>obviously crude joke or reference. Too many people misuse vulgarities,
>>turning them into mild comments. Properly used, vulgar words are supposed
>>to slap you in the face. That's the point!

>Oh, I understand that. I just don't think that's appropriate in a public
>conversation in a newsgroup. If you want to talk to someone that way in
>a private conversation, that's another matter.

I don't hang around the Hunters of this world in real life.

[Mason Barge]

On Mon, 21 May 2012 20:23:56 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<a...@chinet.com> wrote:

>Robin Miller <compl...@invalid.com> wrote:
>>Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>Robin Miller<compl...@invalid.com> wrote:
>
>>>>And that's the point, that you used "fuck" as an offensive weapon
>>>>directed at Hunter. You told him to, in essence, fuck off. When a vulgar
>>>>word is used for meaning, it is not directed at anyone; it is a natural
>>>>part of the sentence. This is not a difficult distinction to make.
>
>>>>But that's not what you did. What you did was say some really nasty
>>>>things to Hunter in order to convey your anger at him.
>
>>>I was angry! Hunter tends to write the nastiest articles on this newsgroup,
>>>although they are on topic. There is no bad writing on television. Viewers
>>>are allowed to get from viewing nothing but what the writer/producer wants
>>>the viewer to see, even though it contradicted what was seen before, even
>>>though the character acted against motivation, even if the resolution was
>>>mere convenient coincidence and not well plotted at all. Also, everything
>>>in later episodes explains everything from previous episodes and is always
>>>the proper conclusion of a proper story arc.
>
>>>That attacks me as a television viewer.
>
>>Adam, you're quite intelligent. You can't really believe what you've
>>written. A different understanding, or point of view, is not an attack.
>
>Plenty of people disagree with my opinions on Usenet, nearly everyone
>at one time or another.

They do not!

[anim8rFSK]

In article <jpe88s$q8o$1...@news.albasani.net>,

Please tell me there aren't actually Hunters of this world in real life.

[Obveeus]

You are both wrong.

[Frater Mus]

On 05/19/2012 04:30 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> s
> p
> e
> c
> u
> l
> a
> t
> i
> o
> n
>
> s
> p
> a
> c
> e
>

> I think the FBI agent is Red John's disciple. It just seems like
> the type of thing the show would do, considering that she delayed
> Lisbon's team and actually fired the kill shot.

Agreed, though I couldn't figure out why she was shooting at the limo.
Maybe she knew RJ wasn't really in there, and it gave her figurative cover?

--
http://www.mousetrap.net/mouse/
written offline, synced later

[Dano]

"Frater Mus" wrote in message news:jpg4ii$gl4$1...@dont-email.me...

On 05/19/2012 04:30 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> s
> p
> e
> c
> u
> l
> a
> t
> i
> o
> n
>
> s
> p
> a
> c
> e
>
> I think the FBI agent is Red John's disciple. It just seems like
> the type of thing the show would do, considering that she delayed
> Lisbon's team and actually fired the kill shot.

Agreed, though I couldn't figure out why she was shooting at the limo.
Maybe she knew RJ wasn't really in there, and it gave her figurative cover?

=====================================

And how in hell did RJ's girl in the front seat emerge unscathed?

[Mason Barge]

Well at least we all agree on *something*.