Definition: Craft one correct answer to the question given in input. To make it more interesting, try to use non-stereotypical language if possible. Make sure your correct answer is reasonably long, consistent with the context, and requires common sense (instead of explicit extraction from the context.) In your answer, use as few words as possible from the given context. Use a response that is uncommon/non-stereotypical, so that it is less predictable. To be less repetitive, please vary your language for each question.

Positive Example 1 -
Input: Context: I was told, in person over the phone, that my shoes were on their way. They have my money. I have no shoes. 
Question: What may happen after the call?
Output: I will return the shoes and get back the money.

Positive Example 2 -
Input: Context: you see , at my age relationship is kind of important and i thought i got the one after all these years . I noticed that once again i was wrong . i was good simply because i was good , i was caring , helping , supportive , bla bla blaaa . 
Question: What may happen to me?
Output: I broke up with my friend.

Negative Example 1 -
Input: Context: I was told , in person over the phone , that my shoes were on their way. They have my money. I have no shoes. 
Question: What may happen after the call?
Output: I will have shoes.

Negative Example 2 -
Input: Context: you see , at my age relationship is kind of important and i thought i got the one after all these years . I noticed that once again i was wrong . i was good simply because i was good , i was caring , helping , supportive , bla bla blaaa . 
Question: What may happen to me?
Output: I was wrong.

Now complete the following example -
Input: Context: The article is a miserable hack - job . Todd Purdum does n't even pretend to prove anything , but uses the anti - Clinton mystique to let his readers make broad leaps from innocuous trips in planes with rich guys to ... oh , you know , do n't you ? Clinton was right - anyone who would write such a piece of crap - to say nothing of the editors who published it - is a " scumbag " . 
Question: Why does the writer believe that the author of the article is a hack job ?
Output: 


Output: Because he believes he is accusing Clinton of things without proof .