Eliza is too bad for me to call the show overall good. Even when the writing is good, I want to dock Joss points for thinking that she can act like more than two (it's Christmas, I'm feeling generous) people. The uber-genius who has everything in her head to lead the rag tag band to topple the Companies and save the world?

How about start with stern and then work your way up to gravitas?

That having been said, I didn't come here to be bitchy, because I was bringing a link of someone who was bitch: [link] and to pretty lame effect. With Cracked articles, even when I don't like them, I get their angle.

This article is angle-free and bitter-full. If it's that bad, stop turning it on. Everything. Turn it all off. The pain will recede slowly.

I liked Eliza much better in the second season when she was able to play a single character more often. She was not strong as a multi-person at all.

But I did end up liking the show quite a lot.

The typos (like rouge for rogue and you're for your) made that sound so much like an angry fan screed posted on a messageboard after middle school lets out for the afternoon that I didn't even bother to absorb the content.

The typos (like rouge for rogue and you're for your) made that sound so much like an angry fan screed posted on a messageboard after middle school lets out for the afternoon that I didn't even bother to absorb the content.

After raiding their parents' liquor cabinet. Yeesh. What an incoherent thought barf.

The typos (like rouge for rogue and you're for your) made that sound so much like an angry fan screed

Not to mention "Cleavland". God, that was terrible.

Not to mention "Cleavland"

I would not mind visiting Cleavland.

That's not an article. Anything under that "topics" section was created by users. They had a wiki template as one of their content experiments. Not one of the more successful ones, unsurprisingly.

So, yeah, it reads like an incoherent messageboard post because that's pretty much what it is.

Thanks for the heads up, Strega. I wonder how many people made that mistake before they shut it down. I don't see where on the page they mention it's not endorsed content. How does a n00b without a Steg find these things out?

Did you see it because someone else linked to it? I didn't know all that before I saw the link. I knew their articles are normally dated and credit the author. Well, and they usually seem to have been proofread. Then I saw it was in a section called "Topics" rather than under "Articles". So I poked around to figure out what that meant.

Nope--it came up in a google search, so I ended up on a Cracked page, and I had no reason to think there were two kinds of pages, and I don't care enough about their publication to do the sort of research you did. In the end, they printed it without clear explanation, so even if they didn't pay the guy, it's affecting their brand. Navigating in through search is a normal way for me to find things, and I do enough to work out I'm not on an Onion clone, and that's about it.