On Mar 12, 5:50 pm, Mason Barge <masonba...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 09:27:29 -0700 (PDT), "W/Q" <i...@email.com> wrote:
> >On Mar 12, 12:04 pm, Mason Barge <masonba...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 11 Mar 2012 14:53:57 -0700 (PDT), "W/Q" <i...@email.com> wrote:
> >> >Finally got to see something that engaged me. [...] Julianne
> >> >Moore
>
> >> -1
>
> >> > Woody
> >> >Harrelson as the campaign manager
>
> >> -2
>
> >> >Sarah Palin
>
> >> -3 out of simple boredom
>
> >I'd response, but it'd be nice if you actually made a token effort at
> >making some minimal level of sense.
>
> I don't like Julianne Moore, I don't like Woody Harrelson, and I'm sick
> and tired of Sarah Palin who has gotten WAY more coverage than the 15
> minutes she deserves.
>
> I'll probably never see this for those reasons, but if I do, the best it
> is likely to get from me is 7 out of 10. I've been wrong before, though.
That's pretty laughable. Even I don't have such an imaginary ratings
system. That would be like my saying I hate everything about Glee
without ever having seen it (and I pretty well near do hate everything
about it), but if I were to watch it, I'd give it a 7 out of 10.
Huh? What? Logic anyone? How can one give any kind of rating to
something that could be considered a credible rating without seeing
the very something you know you hate enough to not want to see it?
Koo-koo land is where Mason lives.