2: I understand there's a hole… I'm just trying to fill it with whatever logic I can find to justify Arthur Petrelli's death. But the Haitian wouldn't need to stand over Petrelli's body… his abilities (including healing) were gone when he was shot, that means he was killed and can't regenerate. Ever again. Slyar and Claire were still in control of their powers when they were “killed”, thus allowing them to heal. Petrelli was not in control of the healing ability: a shot to the head did the trick.

3: It's really all too complicated and too small a detail for me to care, it just makes sense that that was the last power he absorbed, and since I didn't see him using any other powers besides that on the way, I'm just gonna go with it.

4: Okay, you really took my words out of context. You're a fan, that gives you every right to criticize the show and it's plot. However, you're not a writer, therefor you really can't criticize the writers (well, you can, but your opinion is always worth more if you have experience in the field, which btw is why critics are able to criticize: because they know the ins and outs of the subject thoroughly). And anyway, I have watched other shows like Arrested Development and in fact stated that in the first sentence of my 4th argument. All I'm saying is that Heroes really surprised me in how few inconsistencies it has compared to other shows (I honestly expected more, especially considering this show is in the 5th dimension).

5: Thanks for the info, but I prefer to think of Heroes as a story, and listing details like character popularity has nothing to do with the plot. You said “Another good question is where the hell is Caitlin.” I apologize for assuming that by this you meant you actually wanted a logical hypothetical scenario, and see that, as it turns out, you just wanted an opportunity to answer your own question while comparing your love of heroes to my somehow inferior love of Heroes. This is apparently because you (quite professionally) bitch about its inconsistencies while I try to defend it.

6: I am not your enemy, and neither is Heroes. Please, for both our sakes, don't turn this into a flame fest. Your points are quite valid and your knowledge of Heroes trivia is impressive, but in all honestly I'd prefer watching the show to arguing with you about it (though it did make for stimulating conversation). Go Heroes!

2. Though the Haitian had to “fight off” Arthur, in other episodes like “One of Us, One of Them” (with Daphne and Hiro in the theater), his mere presence prevents anyone from using their powers. The Haitian doesn't even need to be aware of it. This happens several times with Sylar as well who is quoted often as being the most powerful on earth during the Arthur Petrelli episodes. Even if Arthur was considered “too strong” to hold, he should be able to regenerate after the heroes left Pinehearst. Adam Monroe and Sylar both survived being burned to a crisp (Sylar was even stabbed in the back of the head with a glass shard before the fire at Primatech). It is even mentioned that the spot that kills regens is at the “atomic level.” Surely, Arthur could survive a simple bullet wound to the front of the head, which is NO WHERE NEAR his regenerative atom. The Haitian would have to be with Arthur's body at all times to prevent him from regenerating. We can “imagine” that extra steps were taken to make sure he was destroyed. Even if such steps were meant to be inferred, you have to agree with me that the hole is big enough, and considering how easily many characters have returned from the dead in the past, the death of a character as powerful as Arthur Petrelli requires some kind of elaboration for the viewers. But, they don't address it ever, which means that the writers simply think that the gunshot wound during the Haitian's intervention was enough to kill him. A glaringly obvious inconsistency.

3. I'll give YOU this one. It makes sense that Peter absorbed Nathan's ability as they jumped out the window in episode “Dual” and that's how the writers later explain he flew two shows later. However, from the initial jump to flying out the window, it is speculative either way during episode “Dual” whether he absorbed Nathan's ability or not. (This was cause for a lot of debate online when the episode aired.) The show addresses that he can only have one ability at a time by absorbing it from someone else using “touch.” However, there are no “charges” on his hands to show the absorption of Nathan's abilities immediately following the injection at Pinehearst. More than as an inconsistency, the “by the way” portrayal of his new power (or lack thereof) in the past few episodes and how it looks like he's flying and absorbing new powers in the “Dual” episode before the writers finally decided to explain (or rationalize) it later just doesn't settle well with me or many other fans.

4. Because I'm not a TV show writer, I'm not allowed to criticize the show? Following your logic, Roger Ebert would be out of a job. Criticism is not the luxury of an equally talented artist, it's reserved for ANYONE taking the time to view a work. I hate it when people like you defend art with dismissive phrases like “Can you do better?” It's just ridiculous. No, probably not since I'm not a TV writer. My job is to watch and talk about it with other fans as I'm doing now. I think I'm entitled to it. So, what about you? Positive opinions are acceptable no matter what, but negative opinions are only reserved for the “worthy”? Don't you see the hypocrisy here? By the same token, I can ask you to stop defending the show “unless you can do better.” If you watch shows like Arrested Development with so many complicated plot points, you wouldn't be making the ridiculous statement that “some things just slip through” even on a good show. Either way, there's no excuse. An inconsistency is an inconsistency.

5. I heard that after the episodes with Caitlin aired, many fans criticized her dialect and her relevance to the story. Nobody liked her and the producers were forced to trash her role along with many others. But this is pure speculation by the tabloids. The purpose of the story line with Peter and the Irish gang was to set up the Circus episodes later. Jalorn, noting the inconsistencies of “Heroes” is not a new phenomenon. Here's an example article:

http://popwatch.ew.com/2007/02/06/is_the_wonky_lo/

TV Guide, Entertainment Weekly, even AskMen.com, all have addressed the inconsistencies in some manner. How do I know this? I'm probably a bigger fan of “Heroes” than you, so I know my shit. Everything I've addressed here are undeniable holes and inconsistencies that many critics (even a writer of the show) has already addressed. I'm allowed to hate on the show in this manner because ironically I love it so much and have read many wiki entry, article, blog, etc. online regarding it. I haven't even pointed out the real major errors in the show at all; I simply talked about the ones regarding the episodes discussed here.