@avclub-e95a45d0b1f5afdf0ab9cde82b4b1d06:disqus , It's actually only really been the last year that it finally dropped out of the top #100 on a permanent basis, and even now it's not the lowest-selling X-book (although I don't see Gambit lasting much longer…), but I still agree with your point.  
A lot of people would…

Seals are cute though.  That's why the EU can vote to ban Canadian seal products while also not giving a fuck about Spanish bullfighting.

Are you fucking serious?

"100 issues" has no bearing on its worth as a comic. Whatever would possess you to write such a thing?  The quality is there, and that's all that matters.

This would only be good if somehow Reema Major played an older Annie, and it was basically just her rapping for two hours.

A definition is not an argument.

But McFarland's proof isn't at stake either.  You're not taking issue with the content of the review, you're taking issue with the very premise of what the review should be.  Your criticisms are based on the review not meeting a set of standards that you feel are necessary but haven't actually justified as being so.

My theory is that the leaking of the first three episodes has made the comments somewhat anemic.

Pour one out for X-Factor.

Here's my actual response: 
Amanda Palmer is problematic because she basically espouses the idea that her embrace of the indie, the absurd, and the quirky somehow entitles her work to a certain level of consideration from the cultural and critical community.  You can see it in her response to Evelyn and Evelyn, and in…

It's the seal hunting. He's pretty angry and anti-Canadian about it.

She supports Morrissey, and Morrissey hates Canada in a hypocritical fashion, therefore she supports hating Canada in a hypocritical fashion.

Replace that line with "You don't know how much ice cream you can eat without feeling guilty" and I would have been sold on the entire thing!

Well Chell,

That was odd.

Here you referred to something not being "valid criticism".  
If McFarland is obligated to "prove" his contention of misogyny; then you're certainly beholden to a similar standard regarding your opinions on what constitutes valid television criticism aimed at a popular audience.

But McFarland actually explained his opinion and used paragraphs to make his work easily readable. You just recited a few things that happened and made a Blues Clues reference.

Idiocy isn't mutually exclusive with misogyny.  In fact, I've never met a misogynist who wasn't an idiot.

You're wrong.

I'm not sure why it seems like navel gazing is necessary for any professional review of a Simpsons episode.  Would it be possible to have a review that doesn't require consideration of the show's entire 24-year run?