Mr_No on 12 May 2016
Teeqoz said:
It's odd, because there already was a review from The Washington Post giving it 4/4 or 100. |
You see?!? puts on tinfoil hat
That's what I've been saying the other day! They want to choose the scores they want to put in to maintain the status quo! They paid the trolling reviewer to make a bad review, so they could choose the most horrible one of the two.
Seriously though, this is really, really weird. If there was already a first review from the Washington Post, why would MC choose the worst review? And by worse I mean less professional and satiric. Only sense I can make of it is that they didn't know about WP already did a review and took the second one as the legit one, or it was on purpose. To keep the score low? Clickbait? Who knows.
