You didn\'t have to go there, did you? You did anyway, didn\'t you?
Like I said, you don\'t need to be over the top ALL the time.
It wasn\'t over the top. It\'s just like when JVBT would say that whoever was the fifth biggest numbskull in the history of Deal or No Deal because she didn\'t play the game in the fashion he thought she should. I\'m not going to take that as gospel, I\'m going to dismiss it as foolishness.
We don\'t care what is in Rob\'s hall of shame because he\'s a twerp and has not built the reputation or foundation of respect so that we might say \"huh, he has a point there.\"
I gotta say at this point I don\'t think the argument is about GSG anymore.
Because the description you put out there can be applied to EVERY critic\'s site. Wouldn\'t you agree that\'s what being critical/poking fun at is about, making fun of it because you can? Regardless of how misguided the person behind it may or may not be?
No. You can criticize something for being lousy without being ham-handed or an Adam Henry about it. Roger Ebert did it enough times that he has at least two books in the
Your Movie Sucks pantheon. Roger Ebert also has reviewed some masterful pieces of cinema, and treated them with the reverence deserved.
Some dink gave a lousy answer on Match Game.
A young girl got confused in front of a green screen and failed to negotiate a bonus round.
Patricia Heaton can\'t do single digit multiplication.
Patrick Duffy is unfit to hold Bill Cullen\'s jock, much less Mark L. Walberg\'s.
Golly dang, Family Feud is a slog when they play to 400, isn\'t it.
There\'s five \"inductions\", boiled down to roughly a tweet each. That is also roughly what each of them deserved.
