Talk:Terror (country)

From Pee Review

Thanks, Mr Judgement. I really appreciate your time. A few points:

1. Formatting had only be revised like that the day before u reviewed. I'd made the changes in response to comments on other pee review pages. I have revised it back, and will continue to do so as I spot inconsistencies. Same goes with the pics; added just for visual attraction really after reading other reviews recommending more pics. Why must pics be relevant, though? As long as they get another laugh and are vaguely funny, what's the prob?

2. I wasn't attempting to create the longest poss sentence in the English language. The header makes that clear, I thought? The point is that the US-B don't understand the sentence, so don't know that they may be too undereducated to question what they had been told. (Unlike those in the invaded countries, who are not actually doing what it is they have been accused of, or for the reasons the US-B believe, and are fully au fait with the real causative factors - factors un-noticed or mis-judged by the US-B.) To be brief, Terrorists understand the reasons behind the invasion only too well, which makes them pissed off but at the correct thing. The US-B does not understand the real reasons, blames it on other things, suppresses the Terrorists and then wonders why they keep fighting; getting ever more pissed off but at the WRONG thing. The humour is threefold: The US-B were too stupid to realise their stupidity, and underestimated and misjudged their opponents, leading to the carnage we now have. Despite the fact that the sentence explains the reason, the US-B still don't (and won't) understand. It's there twice. Imagine on TV news: NEWSREADER: "...George Bush says that he had: 'a great time in England, and particularly enjoyed the London Eye and the bumsex with young rent boys in Trafalgar Square.'" BUSH: "I had a great time in England, and particularly enjoyed the London eye and the bumsex with young rent boys in Trafalgar Square." No offence intended, but you do kind of prove the point about people misunderstanding the content.. ;)

3. In England, we have this thing called sarcasm! Did you get the irony in the last sentence? (Or indeed in that one?!) Sardonic, sarcastic, dry and satirical humour are rather more mainstream in Europe than in the US. Going off on a tangent and introducing what you term "random" humour to each piece before exploding it at the end with a rather more "cutting" punchline is the mainstay of what we Brits love. Particularly in political humour. See Eddie Izzard, Paul Merton, Punt and Dennis, Reeves and Mortimer, Harry Enfield, Paul Whitehouse, Clive Anderson etc etc for examples. The article was kinda aimed at a more European audience, as evidenced by my tag at the page head.

4. Just from the few words in your review, I can tell you many things about yourself. (I'm a doctor in the field of language.) Let me know how many I get right: You are a male, white, N-American mainlander. You are middle or upper class, and aged... at least 40, but I'm tempted to estimate higher. You own the house you live in, and live in a nice area. You are conservative, politically speaking; a right-wing hard-liner, perhaps? You do have a social conscience though, and a big heart underneath the gruff exterior. You do still work, but not in the exact field where you made your money or spent most of your life. You are educated to the level we in the UK would term "post-grad", ie you went further than a standard degree. You are sometimes rather pedantic about language use, and have spent a lot of time conversing with foreign people, Brits and academics. Language is very important to you, and can be seen as a reflection of your personality - I mean you are crisp, precise, diligent and direct. You expect others to be the same. You come across rather more sharply than you intend, on occasion. People respect you and generally accept what you say. You can be a bit of a 'know-all' sometimes, but this is because you are trying to educate others more than it is about impressing them. (Or at least, that's what you believe!) Your opinions are fixed and you do not easily change your mind. You are honest, forthright and forthcoming. I'd guess you were an Aquarian or more likely a Leo. You are "fair but firm" skeptic. You dig etimology, enjoy talking to crowds as well as small groups but need space to be 'you' sometimes, too. You don't do "desperate housewives" or 'Pop-idol', 'south park' or any other "dumbed down" tv, but you do have a penchant for some particular, strange other genre. Standards are important to you. If I was pushed, I would say you have worked (or do still work) in the field of law, or education - you have (had) regular contact with younger people. You are (were) near the top of your game, whatever you do/did. I sense politics is important to you, but you appear too intelligent to actually be a senator or governor. You still (have) play(ed) an active part in the political process somewhere down the line. You look down on people who you deem 'won't help themselves' and deflect criticism about your own failings; this makes you secretly rather insecure, a situation you try to get around by reversing the discussion to focus on the faults of others, or by generally trying to prove yourself more in other ways. You do eventually accept criticism, but only privately, and it hurts you more than you let on. You crave perfection and get frustrated that the world is not more as you perceive it could be. You are a member of some kind of big Gentleman's club thing, whether it be a golf club or the Knights Templars or even a 'masonic' organisation. You have created something new, or discovered something big, or written a big theory: however you've done it, you've been respected in your field for quite a while. You know more than you could ever possibly understand or utilise. I'll leave it there for now - how correct was I? Nice one, cheers dude.

Humour:	4	There's dry, there's subtle, and there's this. It's so subtle and dry it teeters on not being funny. Be very careful.
Concept:	7	I must say, Kudos for the idea.
Prose and formatting:	3	The longest grammatically correct English sentence is over 1000 words, so don't even bother with that; also, there are far too many categories at the bottom. In addition, subtopics are wonderful for organization; I suggest you use them.
Images:	3	Out of your six pictures, only one really does anything for the article, and even then only barely. The three Beadle pictures are especially worthless.
Miscellaneous:	6	Random junk interspersed throughout the article which does nothing to further your point.
Final Score:	23	You have a good article that you've covered in a thin layer of bird crap; scrape that away and you have a good article. It's in there somewhere; I know it is!
Reviewer:	Sir Judgement F@H UmP VFH {talk} 05:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)