Statement of the YCC Film Desk on the responses to “Frisson Break”

12 Sep

Criticism involves separation, which takes place not only in the realm of its production where distinctions are established between specific objects of interest, but also in the realm of its reception, where these distinctions, though deployed in the interest of generating concurrence as to their validity, may instead invite dispute—and all to the good. If criticism is to be vigorous, meaningful, and responsive to its times and climes, then it requires dissensus as much as it does consensus.

This is not to make a case for careless commentary, sophomoric opinionating, gratuitous provocation, or vicious harassment in the expression of disagreement. Nothing ought to be beyond remark, and everyone, as the old saw would have it, may be a critic, but these are not pretexts to dispense with a sense of accountability for what one says or does.

It is in view of the foregoing that we, the Film Desk of the Young Critics Circle (YCC), condemn the spate of mindless hatred and hostility that has been unleashed in the wake of the publication of “Frisson Break”, a recent review of On the Job (Erik Matti, 2013) by one of our members, J. Pilapil Jacobo.

We believe that Philippine cinema—an arena, we realize, where we are merely one of many publics—deserves keen, insightful, and, most importantly, responsible exchange, which we seek to cultivate by way of our essays and our annual citations. That the situation here has not been so, given the decision of many reactors to refuse engagement on the level of argument, to participate in the fomentation of a mob mentality, and, worst, to cloak their identities, as has happened in the comments section of the review in question, speaks of cowardice and is deplorable in the extreme. While we have never considered our work exempt from scrutiny, we fail to see how vacuous savagery can help the discourse on cinema to prosper.

We stand by the entirety of “Frisson Break” as written, uphold the right of each of our members to evaluate films in the manner that he or she sees best, and underscore our commitment to sober, thoughtful, well-informed dialogue.


Posted by on 12 September 2013 in Philippine Film


Tags: ,

44 responses to “Statement of the YCC Film Desk on the responses to “Frisson Break”

  1. Mr. Avid

    12 September 2013 at 10:36 AM

    It’s funny how many of the author’s defenders are anonymous too : )

    • manangbok

      12 September 2013 at 3:20 PM

      Hindi nyo ba alam ito ang Year of Anonymous? OT na pero, diba mga Anonymous netizens ang nag-reveal ng mga modus operandi ni Napoles.

      Ok, back to regular programming … napansin ko lang na itong OTJ review ang may pinakamaraming comments sa mga YCC articles, so far. Hmmm … kudos to Mr. J. Pilapil Jacobo! Sir ikaw na! Smile naman dyan 🙂

  2. ateneoalum

    12 September 2013 at 10:51 AM

    I’d like to know why it is “worst” that those who commented hid their identities. What is so wrong with that? Do you really need to know who someone is in order to engage in meaningful discussion? So lang as you do not use anonymity as a place from which you can safely hurl offensive remarks, I don’t see what’s wrong keeping your identity hidden.

    Revealing your identity makes you vulnerable to Ad Hominem attacks and cyber-bullying.

    • Mr. Avid

      12 September 2013 at 11:24 AM

      Many of the defenses are equally rabid & stupid as the attacks : )

      Revealing your identity means you really want to weigh in on the discussion.

      • dearestyellowstar

        13 September 2013 at 2:48 PM

        really? then why don’t you reveal your identity?

      • impactmeco

        13 September 2013 at 2:51 PM

        how does revealing identity mean that one wants to weigh in on a discussion? eh arguments lang naman kailangan i-atake, hindi yung tao. so what’s the point? para just in case wala masagot ang taong walang alam, yung tao na lang i-aatake? yep 🙂

  3. theo

    12 September 2013 at 12:55 PM

    someone here wants to be the end of the predatory cycle.. you earn a living by critiquing others’ works but you wouldn’t to subject yourself from the same??? a typical arrogance of media practitioners!!! your critic, Mr. Jacobo, ‘thesaurusly’ and rigorously attacked the work of Erik Matti. ‘so exotically written that it served to alienate rather then illuminate’ according to alcuin papa. those who attacked your writer were certainly not part of the movie subject but the general public, so don’t disillusion yourselves that someones want to get even. they are the general public offended by the intellectual arrogance you writer displayed in his PUBLISHED critic. so, can you also accord to us the same power to critic your critic vigorously?

    • manangbok

      12 September 2013 at 3:17 PM

      “critic your critic” — naaliw ako sa play of words!

      Pwede rin siguro “critique your critic” or “critic critic” para shorter 🙂

    • crazyico

      14 September 2013 at 1:50 PM

      a thousand likes to this comment. a thousand likes!

  4. themisanthropologist

    12 September 2013 at 1:19 PM

    Regarding the recent “Frisson Break,” fiasco, I think the YCC should take some time to evaluate the writing style of its critics, and not just the reaction of those who commented. YCC should ask itself: Why did the readers react they way they did? It’s not just because of “mob mentality.” I’m sure that Mr. Jacobo is a very accomplished scholar in his field, but the thing is, this site is a website/blog, not a scholarly publication. People come to blogs to read reviews and maybe share ideas. They don’t visit blogs expecting to read some seemingly highfalutin (or if you prefer, “scholarly”) discourse on a popular action film.

    You mentioned that “Philippine cinema…deserves keen, insightful, and, most importantly, responsible exchange, which we seek to cultivate by way of our essays and our annual citations.” But, what if your essays and annual citations cannot even be understood by your readers? How can there be “responsible exchange” if the only person who can understand your essays are the writers who wrote it?

    Again, I suggest YCC to first evaluate the style and tone of your writers’ essays before “publishing” them on the blog.. You seem to want to come across as a scholarly / academic site, but you should realize that you may have a lot of readers who are non-academics. People who visit blogs these days are college students/grads, high school students/grads, working middle-class people – just your everyday, run-of-the-mill internet surfer. You should consider your audience. Since your writers are contributing to a blog, maybe you should, as a committee start making sure that they are writing for their readers, and not for themselves.

    Lastly, an essay can be scholarly without being overly….eloquent. Expression of ideas should be the main purpose of your writers’ essays, not showing off how smart he/she is what an expert he/she is in the field.

    • OccamAndHisRazorback

      12 September 2013 at 6:56 PM

      Word. Can’t count how many times I’ve had to consult the dictionary because of Mr. Jacobo’s pretentious cavalcade of grad-school bullshit. Alienate, not illuminate – an adage so elementary and hard to overlook you’d think the author would’ve tried to revise his work mid-editting. Unless, of course, he’s just trying to impress his boytoy from a Katipunan school or something.

    • Melissa Lumaban

      22 September 2013 at 11:45 AM

      i agree… ang hirap intindihin ng ganito when all an ordinary reader wants to know is how good or bad a particular film is. what if they identify the kind of readers they want to cater: pang masa ba or pang academician ang target nila?

  5. eriellepineda

    12 September 2013 at 1:45 PM

    “we fail to see how vacuous savagery can help the discourse on cinema to prosper.” But do you see how the style of your writing can also be a hindrance in bringing the discourse forward? If just 1% of the population can understand your reviews, how does this ‘help the discourse on cinema to prosper”?

    And lastly, your site is in the Internet, and “to cloak their identities, as has happened in the comments section of the review in question” is the norm in this medium. If you fail to understand that or how the Internet World works, maybe you should instead create a newspaper or something else instead of posting in a blog.

  6. snap2104

    12 September 2013 at 1:48 PM

    parang immature na twentysomething ang nagsulat nito. hindi na-gets ang sentimyento ng mga nag-comment sa Frisson Break, or baka sinadya ito to gain more hits.

  7. Joel McVie

    12 September 2013 at 2:57 PM

    You want “keen, insightful, and, most importantly, responsible exchange”? Here:

  8. manangbok

    12 September 2013 at 3:14 PM

    “… given the decision of many reactors to refuse engagement on the level of argument, to participate in the fomentation of a mob mentality, and, worst, to cloak their identities, as has happened in the comments section of the review in question, speaks of cowardice and is deplorable in the extreme. While we have never considered our work exempt from scrutiny, we fail to see how vacuous savagery can help the discourse on cinema to prosper”

    Speaking bilang isang “hindi intelektwal” at mahilig mag-Taglish na Pinoy, wala naman ako nakitang “vacuous savagery” dun sa mga comments. Ang bait pa nga nung iba at binigyan yung critic ng “benefit of the doubt.”

    Ang problema kasi sa Internet, pag pinost mo dito ang gawa mo, fair game siya para sa comment/criticism ng ibang netizen (mapa-Anonymous man sya o hindi).

    E di siguro, pwede na naglagay na lang ang YCC ng password para yung mga marunong umintindi lang ang magbasa at mag comment sa mga posts nila. Suggestion lang, peace 🙂

  9. Alberto Pamintuan III

    12 September 2013 at 3:53 PM

    When you say “Young,” do you really mean “Immature?” This is my real name, by the way. I am not cloaking my identity.

  10. Alumni 79xxxxx

    12 September 2013 at 3:55 PM

    As you should uphold, in its entirety, the reading public’s reaction, as written, of Frisson Break and their right to express their review of the review in the manner that they see fit, which, as I understand it, is free of pretension and obfuscation but no less sober, thoughtful, or well-informed. There was no need for this apology (it’s not a defense, but that would even be worse). May condemn condemn ka pang nalalaman dyan? Ineng, kung manlalait ka, dapat handa ka ding laitin.

  11. Pransyel

    12 September 2013 at 4:04 PM

    Reblogged this on Pantasiya.

  12. M Santiago

    12 September 2013 at 4:25 PM

    Ah gusto siguro nilang lumebel sa kanila ang mga nagkomento sa Frisson Break ni Jacobo. Hindi ba pwedeng i-recognize n’yo muna ang validity ng mga komento, anonymously written man ang mga ito o hindi? Kesyo gumamit ng alyas yung mga netizen,hindi nangangahulugang walang saysay ang mga komento nila.

  13. Eric Samuel P. Joven (@ESPJoven)

    12 September 2013 at 5:16 PM

    You are naive and clueless. The criticism was not on his take on Matti’s On the Job, it was how it was written. What is the use of his criticism if you could not understand what he was talking about? If you want to improve Philippine Cinema through your critiques, then make your readers understand what is it that you are talking about. Make every ordinary Filipino understand why the film is good or not. Mr. Bocobo’s article failed to communicate his point because his ideas were hopelessly lost in the jargons he used.

    Have you been to a writers workshop? Try submitting Mr. Bocobo’s Essay and see for yourself what most of the people here are talking about.

    Be humble and learn from your mistakes. That is where growth can be seen.

    and yes, the name above is my real name. I am not hiding from any false identities.

  14. Noel

    12 September 2013 at 6:34 PM

    Medyo OA no? “Condemn the spate of mindless hatred and hostility that has been unleashed” The way it’s phrased, parang The Kraken ang na-unleash. Siyempre may mga magdi-disagree. Pero condemnation kaagad sa disagreements? WEIRD.

  15. Anddy

    12 September 2013 at 9:37 PM

    I do not really understand why so many people are intimidated by this review by J. Jacobo. Again, as I commented on the review itself, YCC “bring into the analysis of film an interdisciplinary approach.” Please intindihin nyo ang ibig sabihin ng “analysis” and “interdisciplinary approach.” YCC’s reviews are not like the reviews on the nationally circulated newspapers or magazines, they are “acedemic” and “scholarly.” If you are against these jargon-filled and highly stylized reviews or writing, PLEASE READ NOT AND MOVE ON. Even if a webpage or a blog is open to public, it does not mean that it has to please everybody. We do not go to all the webpages that are free to browse but to only the pages we need and like. And PLEASE DO NOT OBLIGE ANYONE TO COMPROMISE HIS WRITING STYLE FOR OTHERS UNLESS ITS WRONG. Is J. Jacobo’s review or writing wrong? It’s his opinion and style, so we can agree or disagree, but do not instruct him to change his style for you. If you still want to insist on “correcting” him, go read first critics/thinkers like Derrida, Barthes, Foucault, Zizek, etc. or writers like Joyce, Woolf, Garcia-Marquez, Morrison, etc. Tell them they are arrogant and self-absorbed too.

    • Babushka baby

      12 September 2013 at 11:07 PM

      But Dr Jacobo is neither a philosopher nor a “good critic”. He is just pretentious! I hope he reads Strunk and White’s Element of Style

  16. Noel Canlas

    12 September 2013 at 10:48 PM

    this defensive statement is pathetic. when a writer/reviewer makes public his work, he invites the possibility of this being reacted to in whatever manner the reactors deem fit. if the review is good in the first place, it can stand by itself. To explain it only recognizes its lack of worth or value. The fact also that the writer called those who violently reacted to his review as “mabababaw”, “hindi maka intindi” and “nagpapadala sa hype” only reveals narrow mindedness and parochial thinking – very characteristic of a die hard fan, which many of your members are.

  17. alexvillafania

    12 September 2013 at 11:04 PM

    Glad to know that YCC stands by its reviewer, despite the negative comments. I agree with the absence of decorum in many of the comments thrown at the reviewer. It’s easy to distance one’s real identity on the web when the intention is to troll. Cyber-bullying is a crime and Dr. Jacobo is a victim. (Peace, people. Let’s make it civil, ayt?)

    Still, the review didn’t convey the intention partially because of the cherry picking of each part of the film development and largely by the transition of adjectives from English to a different language. If Dr Jacobo’s intended audience is the 0.0001% of the population, perhaps he may have succeeded in saying “pangit yung OTJ.” If so, go ahead and keep writing to that audience in that manner. But the remaining 99.9 million Pinoys would’ve skipped to the last paragraph of the review to know if the film really was bad. Why? Because they care about knowing what the reviewer thinks. Surely, Dr. Jacobo would know that. He writes poems in Bicolano.

    Of course, Doc J need not heed my own ramblings as well as those of others about his critique OTJ. ‘Tis up to him to decide what’s best for him to do with the rest of his reviews. Sino ba ako para mag-advice? Hanggang isang undergrad degree lang ako sa UPDil at isang fellowship sa Arneow. Siya apat. Ika nga ni Madame Miriam Santiago “I don’t take advice from people without a doctorate!”

    PS: I wrote “Bocobo” instead of “Jacobo.” My meezteyk. MS Word spell check failed this one.

  18. Domon Kasuy

    12 September 2013 at 11:48 PM

    I am sorry for jumping to the conclusion that Prof. Jacobo was being pretentious. Let’s say he knew what he was talking about. The problem is that most of the people who read the review did not.

    So instead of a discussion on the film’s merits, or even the author’s points, the point of contention centered instead on Jacobo’s writing style. And then the exchanges went downhill from there. One can observe, though, that the most hurtful and inflammatory words were uttered not by Jacobo’s critics, but by his defenders:

    “tamad magbasa”
    “asa sa spoonfeeding”.
    “mababang uri”
    “walang nakamit sa buhay”.

    Siyempre, anong klaseng “intellectual discourse” ang aasahan natin diyan?
    Wala na. The “dialogue” quickly degenerated into name-calling and intellectual posturing.

    Anyway, after all that’s been said in the comments section, I will take a step back and say this:
    Something good came out of this, for me at least.
    Nag-expand ng kaunti ang vocabulary ko. hehehe

    No malice or sarcasm intended:
    Thank you, Prof. Jacobo. I now know what the words “bildung” and “frisson” mean.
    Thank you, Frustrated. I have a clearer understanding of the words “condescending” and “patronizing”. Let’s not be like that in real life.
    Thank you, Anjeline de Dios for pointing out that “our own biases are amenable to change”. Medyo nag-shift naman ang bias ko.
    Thank you, Richard Bolisay for a less nosebleed-inducing but no less intelligent and honest review of the film.
    I (think I) really did learn from Jacobo’s review. It was fucking painful to read, and I lost count of how many times I had to reread it, but I think I am better for it.

    YCC, thank you for your official response to our response, but I think you guys need to be less defensive about it. Just acknowledge the criticism and move on. I think none of us here (critics and defenders alike) are opposed to “sober, thoughtful, well-informed dialogue”


  19. jaoromero

    12 September 2013 at 11:57 PM

    I know Jason personally and his choice of words have always been like that. It’s not an intention to be snobbish or upstuck, just a genuine habit of using highfalutin words. not because there is a desire to impress or demean, but because to him, those are everyday words.

    this is not a defense of Jason, the critic, nor is this a validation of Anonymous, the mob. this is simply a statement of opinion, which i hope everyone realizes is what a film review is – an opinion.

    yes, let that sink in for a while.

    “i always find it funny when people attack critics for their reviews. all our lives would be better if we just realize that reviews are nothing more than just opinions. you can let yourself be bothered by it, or ignore it completely. after all, it’s just one man’s opinion. will it lessen your enjoyment of the film if others disparage it? if others like or dislike a film, why should it bother you? be firm in your own opinion and be happy in the fact that you at least have one. nothing good can come out of trying to change the opinion of others.”

    that’s an excerpt from a blog post i just wrote. you can read the entire thing there.

    to the YCC desk: there’s no need to even issue a statement in defense of Jason. as long as you have abided by the rules of ethics, broke no law, and injured no one, there’s no need for you to be on the defensive. stand firm and be resolute in your beliefs.

    to Jason: baring your thoughts to the public through the written word comes a tacit agreement that you are prepared to receive the public’s reaction, good and bad. if you are not prepared for it, then write your thoughts privately. it is in the writer’s realm both to be ridiculed and praised for what one writes. accept it and revel in it. discussion of one’s work is better than non-discussion. at least it means you’re being read. harden yourself. or get out of the kitchen.

  20. Nobody

    13 September 2013 at 12:57 AM

    critics should be ready for any criticism hurled towards them…you criticize films, but you don’t want others to criticize the way you write your criticisms…

    HAHA…nosebleed!…sabi ko na nga ba dapat tinagalog ko na lang eh…hehe

  21. Bimbo Santos

    13 September 2013 at 6:05 AM

    Hindi naman lahat ng comments ay “mindless hatred at hostility.” In fact, kung inyong nabasa ay may mga nagsusulong nga rin ng “sober, thoughtful, well-informed dialogue.” Bakit hindi ninyo namnamin, tugunan, at bigyang pansin ‘yung mga nagbigay ng constructive criticism. Marami rin ‘yun.

    Dun sa mga ad hominem na atake, o “vacuous savagery,” intindihin niyo na lang kung saan nanggagaling ‘yung viciousness nung comments kaysa ikundena at ibasura. Bakit kaya maraming na-badtrip at napamura? Below the belt man ang kanilang reaksyon, may valid din silang pinaghuhugutan.

    Sa lagay ay napakatayog kasi ng tore na inyong pinanggagalingan. Sana ay matuto kayong bumaba, magpakumbaba, at makihalubilo sa aming mga pobreng masa. Sa ganitong paraan ay mas magiging “responsive” at relevant tayo sa isa’t isa. Ika nga ng nauusong buzzword ngayon, “inclusive growth”.

    Pero kung mas trip niyo talaga na kayo-kayo lang na “critics” at “scholars” ang mag-usap at magkaintidihan, nasa sa inyo naman ‘yan. Kung ito ang gusto niyo, I suggest palamanan niyo pa ng sangkatutak na jargon at highfalutin words at kung anu-anong purple prose ang inyong “essays”. Better yet, salpakan niyo na rin ng hieroglyphics at sangkaterbang Latin. Halos pareho lang din kasi ang magiging epekto nun.

    Wish ko lang ay makilala niyo sana one day sina Strunk and White.

  22. dearestyellowstar

    13 September 2013 at 2:44 PM

    eh ganyan talaga mga haters, gustong sumama sa Das Man ni Heidegger. Kumportable kasi. Lol pero sobrang inauthentic. tsk tsk

  23. Leeteraytyur

    13 September 2013 at 3:25 PM

    I am disappointed, YCC. What you had there were kibitzers and casual readers (myself included) who pointed out your weaknesses. There were rude comments that were totally uncalled for, but you cannot escape the fundamental criticism of the review that appeared on your website; a piece that was curated — I presume — by the gatekeepers and editors among your ranks. It lacked true insight, was haphazardly constructed and poorly written. Your loyalty to one of your members is admirable, but leaves much to be desired.

    I had hoped you would see what happened for what it was: that in the real world (which now includes the Internet), you are judged by a formless, nameless mass and by individuals who are not afraid of criticizing the works of people who are used to hogging the podium just because they happen to be career academics. I had hoped you would choose to hold your heads high, and sail through this with dignity. That you had to respond to the “mob” reveals you for what you really are: amateurs.

    • yccfilmdesk

      14 September 2013 at 5:26 AM

      Leeteraytyur, we felt the statement was necessary in the face of comments that were never posted because of their disturbing content (gay-bashing, veiled threats to the reviewer’s life, etc.). Contrary to your opinion, we are not at all dismissive of the more sober comments, and all of us members have a thing or two to learn from this whole issue. Thanks!

  24. humancreed

    13 September 2013 at 5:10 PM

    Reviews are subjective – i think we all understand that – so criticizing what he said is stupid and a total waste of time. But read the comments – i think the anger-vitriol-outrage that people felt upon reading this review – was directed towards HOW he chose to give his opinion.

    He chose to write his opinion using what seemed to be one giant stream of consciousness sentence with every 5/6 syllable word found in the dictionary & about 500 made up frankenstein words.

    Writing is very personal – especially reviews – AND since he chose to post it – it meant that he wanted to share it to an audience / the world. By doing so – He now has the responsibility to consider and think about his audience – and make them part of his whole writing process.

    If your audience can’t understand you or is alienated by you – then what was the point of the post?
    what is the point of this blog? what is the point of the YCC film desk?

    Maybe the concept of this blog / his review is that it is a painting hanging in an art gallery. All of us just kind of have to look at it and accept it as art – and that we ARE NOT supposed to fully comprehend the artist’s – or in this case – the writer’s purpose for writing it talaga.

    UM -e kung ganon – he should have just submitted a painting.

    • manangbok

      13 September 2013 at 9:37 PM

      @humancreed “Maybe the concept of this blog / his review is that it is a painting hanging in an art gallery. All of us just kind of have to look at it and accept it as art – and that we ARE NOT supposed to fully comprehend the artist’s – or in this case – the writer’s purpose for writing it talaga.”

      Uuuy baka ma-offend ang ibang mga artists — e diba ang art encompasses literary, visual, musical at may theater arts pa nga yata — pag sinabi na “we are not supposed to fully comprehend the artist’s purpose for writing.” Arts for art’s sake daw ba!

      May kilala kasi ako na visual artist. She would prefer na maintindihan ng tumitingin ng art nya kung ano ang gusto nyang sabihin. Sabi niya napa-flatter daw sya kung magre-remark yung tumingin ng painting nya whether vitriolic or exalting yung comment. In fairness sa kanya, game sya. Siguro minority lang sya sa karamihan. Kasi mas maganda daw na may comment kaysa daanan lang yung gawa tapos wala na. She’d rather be reviled than be mediocre … daw.

      May isa naman ako kilala, writer naman. Sabi nya ang sining dapat may konteksto at hindi nakapaloob sa isang vacuum. Dapat daw isinasa-alang alang ng lumikha ang audience nya. Kung ang audience mo ay mga German, di mag German; kung French di mag French and so on and so forth. Isang walang kabuluhang bagay daw ang isang nilikha na walang nakaka-appreciate, mapa- tula, kuwento, o siguro kahit essay, man ito.

      Hmmm … ewan! Hindi naman ako artist so malay ko 🙂

      Masarap lang mag-comment, he he he 🙂

  25. humancreed

    14 September 2013 at 7:33 AM

    @manangbok – hahaha ako rin di malay ko.. baka jackson pollock ang peg nya? ie – sige ihagis natin ang buong dictionary! hahaha meron din yang saysay for some…for others – wala. hahaah 😛

  26. barukdok

    14 September 2013 at 10:00 AM

    yeah right, “commitment to well-informed dialogue” through terrible writing, the biggest casualty of which is the art of criticism. pakauwaw lang mo mga hinampaka mo

  27. apo

    17 September 2013 at 1:00 AM

    Can you comment on the Pork Barrel? I would love to read your comment.

  28. alex vergara

    17 September 2013 at 11:44 AM

    Guys, we’re not asking for too much. If writing’s purpose, as they say, is to express rather than impress, then this Jacobo fellow has failed this test completely. He’s not writing a manual in Russian, but a review in English of a popular Filipino film watched by people whose second language (even third) is English. In fact, even a native English speaker would be hard put to understand Jacobo’s choice of words and inches upon inches of meandering paragraphs. In case you have forgotten, writing, much like the cinema, is a medium, too. If you are unable to be understood and appreciative by your supposed target audience, then why the hell did someone like Jacobo bother to write these long, meandering and hifalutin pieces for. It’s a complete pain and failure, and everyone I’ve come across who have read his pieces, think so. If it is to be consumed by erudite and learned members of YDG, then it should be kept under lock and key, and not uploaded in cyberspace where it is open to criticism. If you make a living (or gain fame or a medium for expression) out of criticizing films, then you should be ready to be criticized as well for the fog of verbiage your member dishes out with regularity.

    • Leeteraytyur

      18 September 2013 at 9:30 AM

      Alex, I think it’s YCC not YDG. Although pwede rin siguro siya sa YDG kasi ang hirap din niyang maintindihan.

  29. alex vergara

    17 September 2013 at 11:47 AM

    Sorry, correction, if “you’re unable to be understood and APPRECIATED” by your supposed…”everyone I’ve come across who HAS read…Thanks for hearing me out.

  30. Sal Marcellana

    25 September 2013 at 3:55 PM

    I posted my comment on the writer’s review of Ekstra, which I now realize may be too harsh.

    After reading your response, I’d now like to say, instead: Do keep this writer, you can have him/her!

    I also positively suggest for your blog to be password-accessible only to the 1% who find your guy easy-reading, while I’m joining the 99% who are singing, “Bye, bye birdie! I’m not gonna miss you so!”

  31. Ano ni Imus?

    06 November 2013 at 7:35 PM

    I am not a hater of Professor Jacobo. I am…amused by his onanistic orgy of thesaurusisms. But a plethora of hifaluting words does not a good critic make, sorry to inform you, though you seem to think otherwise. I wonder how you think of Hemingway. But I digress. I loved the way the good professor would repeatedly use Bildung (after informing the ignorant public that this is a German word) and then, when he got to ‘Frisson,’ it was like “o, ito naman, French ito, ha, French. (Shet galing ko.)” Ha ha ha. At least that’s how it came out to this aforementioned ‘amused’ reader. And yes, mothers, don’t shield your baby if he ventures into the big bad world of online blogging with his arrogant piece and then gets thoroughly spanked for it. Paghida-it sa tanan. 🙂


Leave a Reply to Noel Canlas Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: