*Question*
Title: A fantastic work, a mediocre publication Product review: For those looking for Elihu Palmer's work, this surely fits the bill, however the technology used to transpose the pictures of his work into this textual form isn't perfect. As such, there are many, many errors throughout the work making it a very confusing read. Now, an editor could have easily remedied the problem, but the publication states something to the effect of, "It wouldn't be cost-effective due to the low demand for the book." Such excuses are unacceptable to me, and I would imagine are also unacceptable to most. Thusly, I give the work two stars. Would you say this review depicts the product in a flattering or unflattering light?
**Answer**
unflattering

*Question*
Title: I don't want to say it's worst thing I've read Product review: I don't want to say this is the worst thing I've read, but it comes pretty close. While the plot concept is certainly scintillating, the execution is absolutely awful. Locke obviously hasn't discovered what a thesaurus is and uses the same trite words and boring sentence construction to describe every single event. The 'erotic' scenes(which are practically on every other page) in the book seem straight out of a stereotypical bad porn flick from the Valley. I actually found myself offended by some of the scenarios and how they were arranged and that's not including the poor choice of language. After a while, I had to give up. There was no plot, just awkwardly written sex that read like it was produced by a man. It was that bad and I have better things to read. Would you say this review depicts the product in a flattering or unflattering light?
**Answer**
unflattering

*Question*
Title: Scrofulus excreta of a diseased skunk Product review: The original ST was merely a bad rendition of the book, but this garbage combines the worst of bad script, incredibly stupid dialog and anti-war fantasy. In this version the bad guys are human war-mongers, the bugs are just an excuse to show what a disgusting civilization we have. This movie stinks so bad that you will have to burn your clothes if you go near it. Would you say this review depicts the product in a flattering or unflattering light?
**Answer**
unflattering

*Question*
Title: Broke twoce in 3.5 years Product review: Save your money, Dont buy this TV. Below is an email i sent to Phillips customer sevice and still waiting for response.To whom it may concern,I have purchased a Phillips 50 in plasma TV (50PFP5332D/37B) in August 2007. Eleven months (July 2008) later TV broke and it was replaced by refurbished unit after 40 days of wait (The TV was still under warranty). Today (February 2010) TV broke again for what it seems exact problem. The "relay" was clicking and then TV just died. That is what exactly happened in July 2008.I am very disappointment customer with Phillips product. This is unheard that same TV (same model) dies twice in 3.5 years. My last TV (Sony) was replaced after 17 years and it still works!!! Obviously there is questionable quality of the Phillips TV. I will never purchase another Phillips product.Disappointed customer, Would you say this review depicts the product in a flattering or unflattering light?
**Answer**
