In this task, you are given books product reviews in English language. The goal is to classify the review as "POS" if the overall sentiment of the review is positive or as "NEG" if the overall sentiment of the review is negative.

Ex Input:
Yes, Stephen King really IS that good . HEARTS IN ATLANTIS by Stephen King   THE GIRL WHO LOVED TOM GORDON by Stephen King     Two reviews in one? What up with that? Well, I read HEARTS IN ATLANTIS some time ago and, beyond "rah rah go read this," I said it exposed my inadequacies as a reviewer. How stupid was that? I'm going to try again.     I finished reading MY LIFE by Bill Clinton late one Tuesday afternoon, then immediately picked up THE MAN WHO LOVED TOM GORDON. I figured my old friend Stephen King could clear my exhausted mind. He immediately pulled me in, and I read it in a single sitting. It's gripping stuff. Incredibly realistic, insightful regarding human nature, and it'll scare your pants off. The Master is most definitely at the top of his game with this book. Ditto with ATLANTIS.     Authors, how do you feel when you spend months (years?) writing a book only to have some reader say he polished it off in a single evening? Actually, I think you oughta feel good. No writer, not even Isaac Asimov, could/can be sufficiently prolific to be the only one a reader ever needs. I think this is very cool, and I love working with fellow authors to promote this thing we do.     Okay, back to my book review. King was always great, right? But there came a point where a certain sameness crept in. It's hard to define, perhaps, but you know what I mean. I don't think he was having as much fun as he used to, and after a time, neither were we.     Then came ON WRITING, which I never run out of breath raving about, and now books like these. He's scaling back the supernatural, which never bothered me at all, because he's found even scarier things to write about. The Master has raised his game, and it's a joy to know I've got a big old pile of unread Stephen King novels downstairs. Expect more rave reviews.     Oh, and Stephen, if you're reading this, and you ever get the desire to raise your game yet again, just let me know. I'll go rent a truck and hit you with it. (It's a joke. Just like the idea that YOU subscribe to MY rag. I know you'd rather read DAVE'S RAG.)

Ex Output:
POS


Ex Input:
Disappointing !! . I found this book a truly disapointment !!  When i started the book , the story of Abby and Lucian was so intense , so passionate that i thought i was going to love it .  Then the book advances to this days with the story of Declan and Lena , and it was ugelly disapointing !! They don't have anything in commun with Abby and Lucian !!  Lena and Declan , they don't work as a couple in love ; to me they was no chemestry or anything between them . I only read the book till the end because i wanted to know how it was going to end with Abby and Lucian , but that too was a little beyond what i thought it was going to be , they deserv a better ending , i don't now how but that was not what i expected !

Ex Output:
NEG


Ex Input:
Smart Dogs, Dumb Authors . I couldn't even begin to count all the things Stanley Coren gets wrong in THE INTELLIGENCE OF DOGS.  For instance, in one section he claims that dogs have the ability to do math but in another part of the book he claims they can't tell the difference between a tug toy and human skin.  The first is clearly way beyond a dog's capacity, while the second is something which comes totally natural to them.  How did Coren get things so backwards?    And the "intelligence" tests he provides have nothing to do with intelligence but in how focused or driven a dog is to do the test (or game) while you're doing it.  For instance, I tried one of the tests with my dog by putting a piece of food under a towel, then waited to see how long it took him to find the treat.  I'd still be waiting if I hadn't decided he'd never look under that towel.  Then I tried the same game by teasing my dog with one of his favorite toys.  Then I hid it under the towel, and it took him less than a second to get that toy.  So my dog is apparently both on the smarter and dumber ends of Coren's intelligence spectrum.  (This is just one example, by the way: the whole idea of testing a dog's IQ like this is bogus.)    And don't get me started on Coren's pedantic retelling of the alpha myth.  Granted, he wrote this book before the latest research on wild wolf packs proved that there's no such thing as a dominance hierarchy, or an alpha wolf, or the rest of that alpha nonsense.  Though, I doubt if even that data would change Coren's mind.  After all, he seriously recommends rolling your dog over on its back every day and pulling one of the animal's hind legs in the air to create a posture which supposedly "signifies submission to the pack leader."  (Really?  Dogs use "signifiers" now?)    The funny thing is, shortly after reading that passage I saw a wolf documentary on TV and the papa wolf did the exact opposite or what Coren recommends!  He rolled over on HIS back and let the pups jump on top of him and bite his nose!  They loved it!  So I tried what the papa wolf did with his pups with my dog--an alpha male, if there ever was one--and HE loved it.  And later that night, on our last walk, he was ten times as obedient to me than he had been before I'd mimicked the papa wolf's behavior.  Again, Coren had everything exactly backwards to reality.     This "through the looking glass" quality persists throughout the book, with Coren even saying that dogs are capable of hypothetical, symbolic, and conceptual thinking.  Wha..?  I'm sorry.  I love dogs and I think they have wonderful abilities that should be honored and respected, but the abilities they DO have are geared for being a dog, not a mini-me with four legs and a tail.  For one thing, fully one third of a dog's brain is devoted to processing olfactory information, and none to processing symbols and concepts.  I think Coren needs to do a little more research on comparative neuroanatomy and actual wolf behavior before he makes more ridiculous claims like the ones he made in this inane book.

Ex Output:

NEG