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.

Q: Too verbose and no excitement in the writing. . As a Vietnam Veteran who was there in 1963 the flavor of the writing was drab and did not convey what was really going on from the perspective of the ordinary GI. Yes, there were some historical facts and biographical info that was interesting but something was missing. I read about 25 pages and gave up

A: NEG
****
Q: Violates the False Claims Act . Wow. I was shocked. Legitimate statements of liberal Christianity include ones like, 'Transubstantiation is mistaken', 'The Vatican does not have a direct pipeline to God', 'Homosexuality is not a sin', 'Condoms and birth control are morally defensible', NOT 'Jesus never performed miracles', 'The trinity does not exist', 'Jesus is not the Son of God.' It is disingenuous for Spong to assert he is a Christian when he disavows ALL the major tenets of the religion - virgin birth, miracles, incarnation, atonement, resurrection, ascension, the trinity, and the deity of Jesus. He believes less in a religion per se and more in a code of ethical conduct like, say, Confucianism, and the "patronizing nonsense" (a la C.S. Lewis) that Jesus was simply a great moral teacher. He even says on page 229, "...a religionless Christianity must be born." Religionless Christianty?! That's a contradiction in terms. Mr. Spong sounds like an ethicist, not a religionist. He also owes Saint Paul an apology for rumor-mongering when the man has long been absent and not around to defend himself. I do admit though, I liked a lot his discourse on the plight of women and mens' subconscious fear of them. I also liked his observations on homosexuality. What he had to say about Judas was also interesting (but misleading as it is based solely on his own suppositions, not evidence). The section on anti-semitism was informative but that whole subject has always struck me as odd to begin with, i.e., that a Christian could hate or resent a Jew. Very odd. I'm sure we've all noticed that bible-interpetation discussions are on the same road as capital punishment, birth control, gun control, and abortion: I'm Right and You're Wrong Avenue. Especially with bible interpretation, words and phraseology are open to diverse translations, and theologians themselves disagree. Oh, and here's my two cents on the Council of Nicea. Of course the Christian theologians had to discuss Christian doctrine and record it for posterity. Of course Christianity had to be, dare I say, 'corporatized' in a way. How can the Word spread without an efficient distribution channel? The remarkable thing is that it did not happen much sooner. You see now, though, how it is very easy for anyone with an advanced intellect (such as Spong) to take the very (true) words I have just said in this paragraph and make it sound convincingly like, "You see!..he admits it..corporatized!..distribution channels!..surely there was wheeling and dealing...these people were not serious...blah blah blah." I offer one piece of advice. However, I admit I base this advice on my belief that: 1) An all-loving God exists, 2) the gospels are historically accurate, 3) Jesus is the incarnated Son of God and 4) the bible is divinely inspired. Whenever a bible passage irks you, enrages you, or just generally creates any type of irritation in you, remember that YOU are the one thinking about it. And you're not God.

A: NEG
****
Q: No wonder his wife is friendly with the prisoners . This is the story of Sheriff Bell, an insufferable dullard who won't shut up about how criminals these days are really evil (as opposed to all the lovely ones he knew of when growing up?). He's also a world-class boaster, never going more than a few pages without telling us how fantastic is wife Loretta is. The same Loretta who spends most of her time baking for or writing to evil criminals -- which tells me all I need to know about that marriage. The yakkity-yakking doesn't stop there. An even bigger gas-bag is Chigurh, the motor-mouthed murderer. In fact, he kills people twice. Before he shoots 'em, he bores 'em to death. His weapon of choice: Lectures about coins. (His final kill took so long, I had to restrain myself from flingling the book across the train carriage.) On the technical front, McCarthy does not structure the drama in the Classical way. He chose the Boring way. The majority of scenes end exactly as you expect and only one character (Moss) has a believable goal. McCarthy also omits the obligatory final scene, between Chigurh and his prey Moss, which was the only reason I kept reading the book. No doubt this is to defy the expectations of the reader. Expectations that this might turn out to be a decent story, in my case. What's more, Sheriff Bell has no scenes with either Chigurh or Moss, making him a narrator with zero personal stake in the action. Because McCarthy writes good, visual dialogue, he gets away with an inconsequntial narrator for the first half of the story. But when the man on the run (Moss) exits the story, there is no other character to invest in, so the plot grinds to a halt. McCarthy cannot resusitate it because there is no connection whatever between the two remaining main players. So, does McCarthy put us out of our misery? No. Sheriff Bell waffles on for pages and pages about Vietnam, not unlike John Goodman's character Walter in the Big Lebowski. And that's it. My verdict: I hope Loretta runs away with a criminal. Preferably one of them new evil ones

A:
NEG
****