Nicholas J. Signoretta, Staff Infection

Before I even begin with this article, I would like to make it known that this article and its predecessors are not to be considered “Satire”, but instead “Arts & Entertainment”.  The notion that only the first article in this saga was a form of greater artistic, intellectual stimulation but not the following two reviews is an insult to Mr. Pants, Mr. McGlone, and myself after this article inevitably is placed in the “Satire” section of “The La Salle Collegian.”  Just let it be known that I fought hard for my fellow peers and my rights to be considered as something more than just silly, satirical comedy.  Upper management has been warned of my grievances.  Now, we may proceed with the main course of the meal.

To claim that a review that no one asked for of a review that no one asked for of a review that no one asked for of a review that some people might have been interested in reading is warranted in being written and edited would be a rather foolish sentiment.  While I understand how unnecessary the saga of reviews that Mr. Pants, Mr. McGlone, and I have crafted is, I do find it necessary to perpetuate this rather silly exercise just to see how confusing we can make the title of an article in an actual published newsletter.  While many thought the drama between Mr. Pants and Mr. McGlone may have been resolved in Mr. Pants’ follow-up article this past publishing week, I have decided to insert my opinion on their own for the sake of parody and increased confusion.  From the rafters I descend with this surprise article to not only review Mr. Pants’ most recent review but more importantly indirectly harass Mr. McGlone and his review considering it is one of the most jumbled works I have seen produced by a grown, twenty-year-old man.  It makes sense when considering his rigorous coursework that includes well-known courses such as “Love, Marriage, and Parenting”.  Whatever that means.

To begin his return review, Mr. Pants first references the intelligence of both himself and Mr. McGlone and gives the two men a fair bit of credit for their intellectual prowess.  While I cannot speak strongly on Mr. Pants’ mental abilities, I am rather familiar with the brain functions of Mr. McGlone after just over a year of sharing an apartment with him and there is nothing to write about.  The dichotomy between the two men’s reviews leads me to believe that Mr. McGlone is punching above his intellectual weight and should probably back out of the match before Mr. Pants runs circles around him.

As Mr. Pants’ responding review continues, it begins to show that the review he is reviewing is not quite the easiest of pieces to follow in terms of cohesiveness.  Mr. McGlone’s review shifts in a way that is almost violent to read, missing smooth shifts from topic to topic and instead transitioning as seamlessly as a 2013 Nissan Sentra.  This leads Mr. Pants’ response to almost read like a celebrity responding to their fan mail, answering jumbled questions with sloppy responses of advice.  Frankly, Mr. Pants’ response review may also lack sufficient transitions, leading me to believe he might as well have an empty shell of a cranium like Mr. McGlone, although the fact that I too have no idea what the word synecdoche means or who Charlie Kaufman is speaks to my intelligence being right on par with my fellow writers.

The one thing that my far from intellectual peers do get right in their pieces is their analysis of the show’s fourth episode.  The episode involving the teaching of Mr. Fielder’s patented acting technique is the peak of satirical genius and something I can finally agree on with these two bumbling buffoons.

In summation, I specialize in ad-hominem and hope whoever reviews me review is harder on me than I was on these two.

Review Of Mr. Pants’ Review Of Mr. McGlone’s Review Of Mr. Pants’ Review: 8.3/10

Review Of Mr. McGlone’s Review Of Mr. Pants’ Review: 5.7/10

Review Of Mr. Pants’ Review: 7.2/10