Ah that’s helpful; good to know.
It still doesn’t make sense of the plot of course; you would feel the weight difference of empty capsules, and the rattle noise of the container would not sound the same. So he has to open those capsules.
In a way it’s a tribute to the writing. When I watched the episode the first time, I completely bought this reason for nacho and cobbler’s paths to cross again. It’s only on repeat viewing that I was left scratching my head.
I have no problem at all believing that an insurance company would chase down any and all hints that a client might be a bad risk. When I realized what Jimmy was up to, I practically stood up and applauded - it’s a deplorable thing to do, of course, but freaking brilliant.
Sounds like someone who’s gone through the effort to make their placebos convincing! 
I’m a little late to the party (my wife is currently out of town five nights a week, so we watch these on Saturdays), but there was a very tiny visual detail that I liked in this episode. Back during Kim’s “showering at the gym and getting ready to take on the world” montage there was this quick shot of her putting on her arrow earrings and adjusting them forward at a jaunty little angle. This is a woman in control. In the scene where she snaps at her Mesa Verde contact they’re just pointed straight down.
My patients often tamper with their meds, and Security shows me the results.
He’s buying empty capsules so they probably haven’t been sealed yet. Why would they be? He’s probably getting a bunch of unsealed capsule halves. He can fill them with sugar or whatever and then seal them.
:smack:
Ok, I get it. It was just a misparse of what Nacho said*, plus I previously didn’t know there were snap together capsules (I’ve seen sealed capsules before, but not two-piece tamper-proof capsules).
How does a semicolon change it?
Although if you apply Chuck’s sort of reasoning it’s not deplorable but commendable:
(1) Remember, before the bar hearing Jimmy, Kim (I think), and the doctor (Dr. Cruz?) in the hospital were the only ones who know that Chuck’s condition is psychological and not an actual physical sensitivity to electromagnetic fields.
(2) Chuck is therefore practicing law with an undiagnosed, untreated mental condition which certainly impacts his behavior and may impact his judgement.
(3) Jimmy therefore has a duty as an officer of the court to get Chuck sidelined until he gets treatment or at least evaluated (again, this is Chuck-style reasoning, not what Jimmy is thinking).
Of course, Jimmy should have taken Dr. Cruz’s advice and had him involuntarily committed for treatment back when the psychological basis of Chuck’s condition was demonstrated.
Maybe in TV land, but i don’t think the legal status of any of these syndromes change because of stunts or admissions or reveals on the part of the patient. It’s not the way medicine works. There are a lot of people who are sick with things that are not resolvable by a physical/mental dichotomy. There is a continuum, with things like Chuck’s problem, and all doctors know this.
Now maybe he has been dishonest to the bar about it’s existence at all.
I really don’t think there’s a continuum in Chuck’s case. He doesn’t have a slight allergy to electricity that is exacerbated by psychological issues.
He may feel real physical pain, but the origin is psychological.
My point is with maladies like this everything is a continuum, and the patients inconsistency in the face of stunts doesn’t change this.
If they say they just found out chuck has been coocoo and needs to be brought to heel now, I’d say what’s been going on for the last 2 1/2 seasons? Nobody knew? He must be on FMLA. I don’t think that changes because of courtroom antics or gossip overheard in insurance companies.
Heh, watch, the doctor will find a brain tumor that caused his psychological issues, then Jimmy & Kim will really start feeling guilty. 
It’s not just about Chuck’s condition though. Chuck was trying to paint himself as a reasonable person who’s only concern was that his felon of a brother wasn’t morally qualified to be a lawyer. But then Jimmy maneuvers him into that whole, “Oh, but not Jimmy!” rant, which makes it clear that Chuck is harboring a long-standing dislike of Jimmy, that literally goes back to their childhood. That’s just not a healthy mindset for anyone, and when coupled to Chuck’s obviously delusional “allergy to electricity”, it makes Jimmy’s “I was just trying to help my sick brother - just like I’ve been doing for years” defense more plausible, and excuses his one moment of finally snapping after all those years of stress.
I admit I haven’t been closely watching Chuck’s resentments and actions. But I never saw these things as unhealthy. Chuck is much more reasonable for instance in his speech than many posters here. Let’s face it. Anger is part of family life.
Maybe it makes Jimmy look better but this has gone past that into “hurting Chuck territory” hasn’t it?
It changes it from something like “I need empty, sealed capsules” to “I need empty, unsealed capsules”. Although it’s ambiguous without the semicolon, and could be interpreted either way.
Oh, absolutely, but that’s from the audience’s point of view. To the people on the Bar Association tribunal, and the insurance broker, though, it would look a lot different, and those are the people Jimmy’s act is aimed at. To them, Chuck looks like a totally deranged lunatic, and Jimmy is the sympathetic brother who just wanted to help, and got burned for his trouble.
I’m sure it will all blow up in Jimmy’s face at some point, though. That’s what the Breaking Bad Universe is all about, after all
Ooh–good catch! I missed that entirely. I’ll have to re-watch the episode and look for the downward-pointing earrings.
You explained jimmys actions as to make himself look better before.
You haven’t explained how chucks looking like a lunatic could be a rational plan for jimmy to hurt him professionally. Or why it is only now and not years ago.
I see that’s the way it’s looking. But he should be protected under the law.
i got to stop thinking about this.
Yes exactly. I’m not blaming anyone but myself for misparsing what Nacho said (hence the :smack:), what he said is grammatically correct. Though there are ways he could have said it that would have removed the ambiguity, like your second sentence.