Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Added pun
Changed line(s) 620 (click to see context) from:
** Also, Dwight is devious and thinks others are, too, and so would think Jim would search for a recording device. He couldn't risk Jim finding the pen recorder so he made sure the mallard recorder would be found first and ensure Jim fell into a false sense of security and thus not bother to look any further.
to:
** Also, Dwight is devious and thinks others are, too, and so would think Jim would search for a recording device. He couldn't risk Jim finding the pen recorder so he made sure the mallard recorder would be found first and ensure Jim fell into a false sense of security and thus not bother to look any further. The mallard was [[Pun|a decoy]].
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Dwight threw Jim off the scent
Added DiffLines:
** Also, Dwight is devious and thinks others are, too, and so would think Jim would search for a recording device. He couldn't risk Jim finding the pen recorder so he made sure the mallard recorder would be found first and ensure Jim fell into a false sense of security and thus not bother to look any further.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Code speak in different situations
Added DiffLines:
** Michael in small doses can focus on what what people want to hear and can drive the conversation back to paper. One of his rules is ABC: Always Be Closing. But the clients don't have to spend all day with him five days a week. And he's pushing paper to clients, not his jokes or himself like he is onto his employees or potential mates. Like
you see how much he changed when he realized he was on a blind date, he learned good skills for certain situations but he also learned the completely wrong skills for others.
you see how much he changed when he realized he was on a blind date, he learned good skills for certain situations but he also learned the completely wrong skills for others.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Big boss ire is on Michael
Added DiffLines:
** Also, Michael is the target of their ire in this moment, so they're looking for Michael to be the good employee and not looking to punish everyone.
** Further, as Michael is Jim's direct supervisor, it's not their place to be punishing Jim for a minor infraction, especially when they're checking that Michael is doing _his_ job.
** Further, as Michael is Jim's direct supervisor, it's not their place to be punishing Jim for a minor infraction, especially when they're checking that Michael is doing _his_ job.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Jewelry stores offer financing
Added DiffLines:
** He also didn't need to pay the whole price in cash. Jewelry stores offer financing, which would also make sense with his penchant for debt.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
More motivation for Stanley to not care about big bucks
Added DiffLines:
*** Stanley simply isn't that motivated by or for money. He works hard enough to keep his job and earns enough to live comfortably. He does not have the motivation to kill himself in a job.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
It is difficult translating what you do every day into words
Added DiffLines:
** Also, it's just common that you know your role and duties when you start a job, but then when asked to explain them suddenly years later are you going to have to take a minute to re-remember how to put into words what you actually do. Ever have difficulty writing your own résumé?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Elaborating on Angelo's bigoted actions
Added DiffLines:
** It's because Angelo (and his "Under Circle") _is_ sexist. Bigots want to preserve the world as they see proper so they'll avoid learning to be open or tolerant and will easily die on a hill to preserve their worldview. Further, in today's world of tolerance (or perceived forced tolerance), for self-preservation bigots cannot stand anyone calling them a bigot. So he kicks Jim out for pointing out he's a bigot. Then it's _because_ Angelo is a bigot that he thinks he's the Hero by inviting Jim back to protect Jim and all male-kind against the aggression from Pam.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 369 (click to see context) from:
** The whole point of Charles' character is that he is intractably hostile towards Jim, to the point of offering him NoSympathy and no benefit of the doubt whatsoever. He's just convinced that Jim is trying to big himself up and / or
to:
** The whole point of Charles' character is that he is intractably hostile towards Jim, to the point of offering him NoSympathy and no benefit of the doubt whatsoever. He's just convinced that Jim is trying to big himself up and / or mislead him.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 250 (click to see context) from:
* It's slightly amusing on a meta level how we appear to have two headscratchers, one immediately after the other, with the first complaining about how everyone seems to excessively hate Jim and Pam and the other complaining about how everyone appears to excessively love Jim and Pam. This would seem to suggest that, in fact, Jim and Pam do not inspire excessive feelings one way or another from their colleagues, and that any indications to the contrary are more context-specific than we're allowing for. It also seems to suggest that these headscratchers may be based more on Jim and Pam inspiring excessive feelings one way or another on part of members of the ''audience'' (who may be allowing these excessive feelings to blind them a bit) than anything directly presented within the series itself.
to:
* It's slightly amusing on a meta level how we appear to have two headscratchers, one immediately after the other, with the first complaining about how everyone seems to excessively hate Jim and Pam and the other complaining about how everyone appears to excessively love Jim and Pam. This would seem to suggest that, in fact, on balance Jim and Pam do not inspire excessive feelings one way or another from their colleagues, and that any indications to the contrary are more context-specific than we're allowing for. It also seems to suggest that these headscratchers may be based more on Jim and Pam inspiring excessive feelings one way or another on part of members of the ''audience'' (who may be allowing these excessive feelings to blind them a bit) than anything directly presented within the series itself.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** There's possibly some kind of legal or regulatory requirement that when a senior position opens up, management have to officially consider all the people immediately junior to that role for a promotion into it before they look at anyone else. Even if they actually have no intention of promoting any or all of the employees in question, bringing them in for a courtesy interview at least fulfils that requirement.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** There's an old joke: what you call a doctor who went to a terrible medical school, achieved the lowest grades in his class, spent all his time partying instead of studying, barely passed his exams, and only just managed to earn his medical degree? You call him 'doctor'. Similar to the joke, there are some hints that Ryan only scraped through his MBA with low grades; most prominently the episode where he takes Michael into his business school class to deliver a presentation, which seems to be an extra credit exercise. Since Ryan almost certainly wouldn't introduce Michael to his teachers and classmates if he didn't have to, extra credit or otherwise, the implication is that Ryan ''needs'' to do this in order to get a passing grade, which suggests that his grades in this class aren't great -- and if they aren't great in one class, there's a greater-than-zero chance they aren't great in others either. This would be consistent with Ryan's overall characterisation as someone who looks down on the people around him but isn't actually as smart and superior as he thinks he is. If Ryan only barely managed to earn his MBA, it's not unreasonable that there would be gaps in his knowledge like this.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** The fact that Dwight's farm is situated close enough to Scranton to enable him to commute to and from an urban-based office job in itself clearly suggests that his farm is not that remote or archaic.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** In a meta-sense, some of this can also be put down to {{Flanderization}}. Kevin's stupidity (or "stupidity" if you accept the point above) is exaggerated over time for humor.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** The whole point of Charles' character is that he is intractably hostile towards Jim, to the point of offering him NoSympathy and no benefit of the doubt whatsoever. He's just convinced that Jim is trying to big himself up and / or
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 7 (click to see context) from:
** Also, Jim personally faces direct negative repercussions from Josh's actions. Never mind Dunder Mifflin, Josh has completely screwed over Jim on a personal level and thrown a wrench in his life and plans; having uprooted his life and moved to Stanford with the expectation of a secure job, thanks to Josh he is now faced with the prospect of either unemployment or having to uproot his life ''again'' to move back to Scranton, a place he had wanted to move away from for personal reasons. And this, mere months after having moved there in the first place. Even if you are inclined to think better of Josh in this situation, it shouldn't be that surprising that Jim himself is personally not particularly inclined to raise a glass and toast Josh's good fortune, breath a sigh of relief that Josh is doing well, or gush fawningly over how Josh's actions are perfectly justified and that Josh has an absolute right to look out for his interests and his interests only. Josh has shown no personal loyalty to Jim or concern for how his decisions might affect him; ergo, Jim in turn has absolutely no obligation to prioritise or even give a single solitary shit about Josh's perspective on events, and it's frankly more unreasonable for anyone to question or demand why he doesn't.
to:
** Also, Jim personally faces direct negative repercussions from Josh's actions. Never mind Dunder Mifflin, Josh has completely screwed over Jim on a personal level and thrown a wrench in his life and plans; having uprooted his life and moved to Stanford with the expectation of a secure job, thanks to Josh he is now faced with the prospect of either unemployment or having to uproot his life ''again'' to move back to Scranton, a place he had wanted to move away from for personal reasons. And this, mere months after having moved there in the first place. Even if you are inclined to think better of Josh in this situation, it shouldn't be that surprising that Jim himself is personally not particularly inclined to raise a glass and toast Josh's good fortune, breath a sigh of relief that Josh is doing well, or gush fawningly over how Josh's actions are perfectly justified and that Josh has an absolute right to look out for his interests and his interests only. Josh has shown no personal loyalty to Jim towards or concern for how his decisions might affect him; Jim; ergo, Jim in turn has absolutely no obligation to prioritise or even give a single solitary shit about Josh's perspective on events, and it's frankly more unreasonable for anyone to question or demand why he doesn't.events.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 7 (click to see context) from:
** Also, Jim personally faces direct negative repercussions from Josh's actions. Never mind Dunder Mifflin, Josh has completely screwed over Jim on a personal level and thrown a wrench in his life and plans; having uprooted his life and moved to Stanford with the expectation of a secure job, thanks to Josh he is now faced with the prospect of either unemployment or having to uproot his life ''again'' to move back to Scranton, a place he had wanted to move away from for personal reasons. And this, mere months after having moved there in the first place. Even if you are inclined to think better of Josh in this situation, it shouldn't be that surprising that Jim himself is personally not particularly inclined to raise a glass and toast Josh's good fortune, breath a sigh of relief that Josh is doing well, or gush fawningly over how Josh's actions are perfectly justified and that Josh has an absolute right to look out for his interests and his interests only. Josh has shown no loyalty to Jim; ergo, Jim has absolutely no obligation to prioritise or even give a single solitary shit about Josh's perspective on events, and it's frankly more unreasonable for anyone to question or demand why he doesn't.
to:
** Also, Jim personally faces direct negative repercussions from Josh's actions. Never mind Dunder Mifflin, Josh has completely screwed over Jim on a personal level and thrown a wrench in his life and plans; having uprooted his life and moved to Stanford with the expectation of a secure job, thanks to Josh he is now faced with the prospect of either unemployment or having to uproot his life ''again'' to move back to Scranton, a place he had wanted to move away from for personal reasons. And this, mere months after having moved there in the first place. Even if you are inclined to think better of Josh in this situation, it shouldn't be that surprising that Jim himself is personally not particularly inclined to raise a glass and toast Josh's good fortune, breath a sigh of relief that Josh is doing well, or gush fawningly over how Josh's actions are perfectly justified and that Josh has an absolute right to look out for his interests and his interests only. Josh has shown no personal loyalty to Jim; Jim or concern for how his decisions might affect him; ergo, Jim in turn has absolutely no obligation to prioritise or even give a single solitary shit about Josh's perspective on events, and it's frankly more unreasonable for anyone to question or demand why he doesn't.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 617 (click to see context) from:
** That said, in this viewer's experience at least, describing Darryl as a bully is perhaps a little harsh. He is quite forceful in getting Michael to acquiesce to the warehouse staff unionising, but this can be read as more of a political power move rather than "bullying" per say (Darryl is simply exploiting Michael's neediness to try and get better conditions for his staff), and Michael can genuinely be a huge pain in the ass to Darryl, so Darryl is simply expressing his frustration and trying to "persuade" Michael to stop.
to:
** That said, in this viewer's experience at least, describing Darryl as a bully is perhaps a little harsh. He is quite forceful in getting Michael to acquiesce to the warehouse staff unionising, but this can be read as more of a political power move rather than "bullying" per say (Darryl is simply exploiting Michael's neediness to try and get better conditions for his staff), and Michael can genuinely be a huge pain in the ass to Darryl, Darryl (he talks down to, belittles and racially stereotypes him, even if inadvertently, and treats Darryl's workplace like it's his own personal theme park)+, so Darryl is simply expressing his frustration and trying to "persuade" Michael to stop. stop.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 7 (click to see context) from:
** Also, Jim personally faces direct negative repercussions from Josh's actions. Having uprooted his life and moved to Stanford with the expectation of a secure job, thanks to Josh he is now faced with the prospect of either unemployment or having to uproot his life ''again'' to move back to Scranton, a place he had wanted to move away from for personal reasons. And this, mere months after having moved there in the first place. Even if you are inclined to think better of Josh in this situation, it shouldn't be that surprising that Jim himself is personally not particularly inclined to raise a glass and toast Josh's good fortune, breath a sigh of relief that Josh is doing well, or gush fawningly over how Josh's actions are perfectly justified and that Josh has an absolute right to look out for his interests and his interests only. Josh has completely screwed over Jim on a personal level and thrown a wrench in Jim's life and plans; Jim has absolutely no obligation to prioritise or even care about Josh's perspective on events, and it's frankly more unreasonable for anyone to question or demand why he doesn't.
to:
** Also, Jim personally faces direct negative repercussions from Josh's actions. Having Never mind Dunder Mifflin, Josh has completely screwed over Jim on a personal level and thrown a wrench in his life and plans; having uprooted his life and moved to Stanford with the expectation of a secure job, thanks to Josh he is now faced with the prospect of either unemployment or having to uproot his life ''again'' to move back to Scranton, a place he had wanted to move away from for personal reasons. And this, mere months after having moved there in the first place. Even if you are inclined to think better of Josh in this situation, it shouldn't be that surprising that Jim himself is personally not particularly inclined to raise a glass and toast Josh's good fortune, breath a sigh of relief that Josh is doing well, or gush fawningly over how Josh's actions are perfectly justified and that Josh has an absolute right to look out for his interests and his interests only. Josh has completely screwed over Jim on a personal level and thrown a wrench in Jim's life and plans; shown no loyalty to Jim; ergo, Jim has absolutely no obligation to prioritise or even care give a single solitary shit about Josh's perspective on events, and it's frankly more unreasonable for anyone to question or demand why he doesn't.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 7 (click to see context) from:
** Also, Jim personally faces direct negative repercussions from Josh's actions. Having uprooted his life and moved to Stanford with the expectation of a secure job, thanks to Josh he is now faced with the prospect of either unemployment or having to uproot his life ''again'' to move back to Scranton, a place he had wanted to move away from for personal reasons. And this, mere months after having moved there in the first place. Even if you are inclined to think better of Josh in this situation, it shouldn't be that surprising that Jim himself is personally not particularly inclined to raise a glass and toast Josh's good fortune, breath a sigh of relief that Josh is doing well, or gush fawningly over how Josh's actions are perfectly justified and that Josh has an absolute right to look out for his interests and his interests only. Josh has completely screwed over Jim on a personal level and thrown a wrench in Jim's life and plans; Jim has absolutely no obligation to prioritise Josh's perspective on events, and it's frankly more unreasonable for anyone to question or demand why he doesn't.
to:
** Also, Jim personally faces direct negative repercussions from Josh's actions. Having uprooted his life and moved to Stanford with the expectation of a secure job, thanks to Josh he is now faced with the prospect of either unemployment or having to uproot his life ''again'' to move back to Scranton, a place he had wanted to move away from for personal reasons. And this, mere months after having moved there in the first place. Even if you are inclined to think better of Josh in this situation, it shouldn't be that surprising that Jim himself is personally not particularly inclined to raise a glass and toast Josh's good fortune, breath a sigh of relief that Josh is doing well, or gush fawningly over how Josh's actions are perfectly justified and that Josh has an absolute right to look out for his interests and his interests only. Josh has completely screwed over Jim on a personal level and thrown a wrench in Jim's life and plans; Jim has absolutely no obligation to prioritise or even care about Josh's perspective on events, and it's frankly more unreasonable for anyone to question or demand why he doesn't.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 7 (click to see context) from:
** Also, Jim personally faces direct negative repercussions from Josh's actions. Having uprooted his life and moved to Stanford with the expectation of a secure job, thanks to Josh he is now faced with the prospect of either unemployment or having to uproot his life ''again'' to move back to Scranton, a place he had wanted to move away from for personal reasons. Even if you are inclined to think better of Josh in this situation, it shouldn't be that surprising that Jim himself is personally not particularly inclined to raise a glass and toast Josh's good fortune, breath a sigh of relief that Josh is doing well, or gush fawningly over how Josh's actions are perfectly justified and that Josh has an absolute right to look out for his interests and his interests only. Josh has completely screwed over Jim on a personal level and thrown a wrench in Jim's life and plans; Jim has absolutely no obligation to prioritise Josh's perspective on events, and it's frankly more unreasonable for anyone to question or demand why he doesn't.
to:
** Also, Jim personally faces direct negative repercussions from Josh's actions. Having uprooted his life and moved to Stanford with the expectation of a secure job, thanks to Josh he is now faced with the prospect of either unemployment or having to uproot his life ''again'' to move back to Scranton, a place he had wanted to move away from for personal reasons. And this, mere months after having moved there in the first place. Even if you are inclined to think better of Josh in this situation, it shouldn't be that surprising that Jim himself is personally not particularly inclined to raise a glass and toast Josh's good fortune, breath a sigh of relief that Josh is doing well, or gush fawningly over how Josh's actions are perfectly justified and that Josh has an absolute right to look out for his interests and his interests only. Josh has completely screwed over Jim on a personal level and thrown a wrench in Jim's life and plans; Jim has absolutely no obligation to prioritise Josh's perspective on events, and it's frankly more unreasonable for anyone to question or demand why he doesn't.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 7 (click to see context) from:
** Also, Jim personally faces direct negative repercussions from Josh's actions. Having uprooted his life and moved to Stanford with the expectation of a secure job, thanks to Josh he is now faced with the prospect of either unemployment or having to uproot his life ''again'' to move back to Scranton, a place he had wanted to move away from for personal reasons. Even if you are inclined to think better of Josh in this situation, it shouldn't be that surprising that Jim himself is personally not particularly inclined to raise a glass and toast Josh's good fortune, breath a sigh of relief that Josh is doing well, or gush fawningly over how Josh's actions are perfectly justified and that Josh has an absolute right to look out for his interests and his interests only. Josh has completely screwed over Jim personally and thrown a wrench in Jim's life and plans; Jim has absolutely no obligation to prioritise Josh's perspective on events, and it's frankly more unreasonable for anyone to question or demand why he doesn't.
to:
** Also, Jim personally faces direct negative repercussions from Josh's actions. Having uprooted his life and moved to Stanford with the expectation of a secure job, thanks to Josh he is now faced with the prospect of either unemployment or having to uproot his life ''again'' to move back to Scranton, a place he had wanted to move away from for personal reasons. Even if you are inclined to think better of Josh in this situation, it shouldn't be that surprising that Jim himself is personally not particularly inclined to raise a glass and toast Josh's good fortune, breath a sigh of relief that Josh is doing well, or gush fawningly over how Josh's actions are perfectly justified and that Josh has an absolute right to look out for his interests and his interests only. Josh has completely screwed over Jim personally on a personal level and thrown a wrench in Jim's life and plans; Jim has absolutely no obligation to prioritise Josh's perspective on events, and it's frankly more unreasonable for anyone to question or demand why he doesn't.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 7 (click to see context) from:
** Also, Jim faces direct negative repercussions from Josh's actions. Having uprooted his life and moved to Stanford with the expectation of a secure job, thanks to Josh he is now faced with the prospect of either unemployment or having to uproot his life ''again'' to move back to Scranton, a place he had wanted to move away from for personal reasons. Even if you are inclined to think better of Josh in this situation, it shouldn't be that surprising that Jim himself is personally not particularly inclined to raise a glass and toast Josh's good fortune and breath a sigh of relief that Josh is doing well, since Josh has directly thrown a wrench into Jim's life and plans.
to:
** Also, Jim personally faces direct negative repercussions from Josh's actions. Having uprooted his life and moved to Stanford with the expectation of a secure job, thanks to Josh he is now faced with the prospect of either unemployment or having to uproot his life ''again'' to move back to Scranton, a place he had wanted to move away from for personal reasons. Even if you are inclined to think better of Josh in this situation, it shouldn't be that surprising that Jim himself is personally not particularly inclined to raise a glass and toast Josh's good fortune and fortune, breath a sigh of relief that Josh is doing well, since or gush fawningly over how Josh's actions are perfectly justified and that Josh has directly an absolute right to look out for his interests and his interests only. Josh has completely screwed over Jim personally and thrown a wrench into in Jim's life and plans.plans; Jim has absolutely no obligation to prioritise Josh's perspective on events, and it's frankly more unreasonable for anyone to question or demand why he doesn't.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** Also, Jim faces direct negative repercussions from Josh's actions. Having uprooted his life and moved to Stanford with the expectation of a secure job, thanks to Josh he is now faced with the prospect of either unemployment or having to uproot his life ''again'' to move back to Scranton, a place he had wanted to move away from for personal reasons. Even if you are inclined to think better of Josh in this situation, it shouldn't be that surprising that Jim himself is personally not particularly inclined to raise a glass and toast Josh's good fortune and breath a sigh of relief that Josh is doing well, since Josh has directly thrown a wrench into Jim's life and plans.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 177 (click to see context) from:
** In as much as these questions really need answers (we're... kind of overthinking the logistics of what is basically just a company event here, everyone), the only real answers that can be provided are"whichever option is easiest/cheapest for all concerned" and "whatever they are legally mandated to do". If it's cheaper and easier for everyone to congregate at a halfway point, then they'll do that; otherwise, corporate will get everyone into New York. If it's an official work function where attendance is mandatory, then there will be presumably some kind of legal compensation for time and expenses, or at least will provide options for people to save the gas money (busing, for example).
to:
** In as much as these questions really need answers (we're... kind of overthinking the logistics of what is basically just a company event here, everyone), the only real answers that can be provided are"whichever option is easiest/cheapest for all concerned" and "whatever they are legally mandated to do". If it's cheaper and easier for everyone to congregate at a halfway point, then they'll do that; otherwise, corporate will get everyone into New York. If it's an official work function where attendance is mandatory, then there will be presumably some kind of legal compensation for time and expenses, or at least corporate will provide options for people to save the gas money (busing, for example).example); if attendance is optional, then people can make their own way there or not as they please.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 6 (click to see context) from:
** The real question is why ''wouldn't'' Jim think little of Josh for doing this? It's underhanded, callous and backstabbing. Josh isn't wrong to look out for his interests in and of itself, but what makes his actions wrong is that he was also in a position of authority over people who were trusting him to consider their welfare and interests in the workplace in addition to his own; he's not wrong to want a better job, but he ''is'' wrong to exploit his position and the people working for him to try and get that better job and then completely throw them all under the bus after doing so. Furthermore, he made a point of acting like everyone's best buddy and the great boss who genuinely cared deeply for his employees, so secretly selling them all out for his own sake is slimy and hypocritical. Jim might not himself feel a tremendous amount of loyalty towards Dunder-Mufflin, but that's fine, because ''no one else's career or livelihood'' is at risk if Jim secretly looks for something better. Dunder-Mufflin might be staffed by self-serving incompetents, but that's no reason for Josh to live down to that level, and certainly is no reason for him to secretly betray his employees while doing so. Jim is simply pointing out that Michael, for all his obvious faults and for all the ways in which people look down on him as the "worst boss ever", nevertheless clearly feels a genuine loyalty and responsibility towards the workers he is responsible for and wouldn't sell them out in this way purely for his own benefit while still pretending that he was their best friend and cared deeply about them.
to:
** It's ''because'' Josh "went about it the way he did". The real question is why ''wouldn't'' Jim think little of Josh for doing this? It's underhanded, callous and backstabbing. Josh isn't wrong to look out for his interests in and of itself, but what makes his actions wrong is that he was also in a position of authority over people who were trusting him to consider their welfare and interests in the workplace in addition to his own; he's not wrong to want a better job, but he ''is'' wrong to exploit his position and the people working for him to try and get that better job and then completely throw them all under the bus after doing so. Furthermore, he made a point of acting like everyone's best buddy and the great boss who genuinely cared deeply for his employees, so secretly selling them all out for his own sake is slimy and hypocritical. Jim might not himself feel a tremendous amount of loyalty towards Dunder-Mufflin, but that's fine, because ''no one else's career or livelihood'' is at risk if Jim secretly looks for something better. Dunder-Mufflin might be staffed by self-serving incompetents, but that's no reason for Josh to live down to that level, and certainly is no reason for him to secretly betray his employees while doing so. Jim is simply pointing out that Michael, for all his obvious faults and for all the ways in which people look down on him as the "worst boss ever", nevertheless clearly feels a genuine loyalty and responsibility towards the workers he is responsible for and wouldn't sell them out in this way purely for his own benefit while still pretending that he was their best friend and cared deeply about them.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 446 (click to see context) from:
* The writers putting Jim and Pam's marriage through the wringer seems like a really transparent way to avoid the RelationshipCeiling. Since the moment they got together they've been totally in sync with one another, but now out of the blue their relationship is crumbling. Jim lying about his new business prospects and becoming a subsequent Jerkass, Pam wanting nothing to do with Philadelphia, and the ultimately pointless love triangle teased with Brian the sound guy that lasted all of two episodes.... It's not that I don't buy the idea that Jim and Pam could ever fight, it just seems like they're trying to cram five years of marital problems into the span of just a few episodes just for the drama.
to:
* The writers putting Jim and Pam's marriage through the wringer seems like a really transparent way to avoid perceived stagnation in the RelationshipCeiling.relationship. Since the moment they got together they've been totally in sync with one another, but now out of the blue their relationship is crumbling. Jim lying about his new business prospects and becoming a subsequent Jerkass, Pam wanting nothing to do with Philadelphia, and the ultimately pointless love triangle teased with Brian the sound guy that lasted all of two episodes.... It's not that I don't buy the idea that Jim and Pam could ever fight, it just seems like they're trying to cram five years of marital problems into the span of just a few episodes just for the drama.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** I see it as the four people it's easiest to imagine him saying "Damnit, [NAME]" to - Jim, Phyllis, Kevin, and Kelly.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
You may have been thinking of "Parks and Rec".
Changed line(s) 646 (click to see context) from:
[[folder: Andy Dwyer: Regional Director in Charge of Sales]]
to:
[[folder: Andy Dwyer: Bernard: Regional Director in Charge of Sales]]
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 642 (click to see context) from:
to:
** Ultimately, as with a few of the "why doesn't the documentary crew [do X]" questions, the only real answer is that it's not an actual documentary, it's a mockumentary. There's not an actual documentary crew whose movements and decisions we can know with any degree of certainty beyond wild speculation, because the documentary crew doesn't really exist and their actions and motives aren't the main focus of the story. This is still a scripted narrative sitcom, and the show overall still has to be watched with that in mind. Cliffhangers exist to get people interested and watching for the next season, you're supposed to politely apply to some WillingSuspensionOfDisbelief for why the documentary crew take the summer off right before a major change in their subject.
