I made a Christmas album a couple of years ago and just put it out on my Web site. It kind of smacked of this flavor. All of the reviews said it was Western swing even when it was Christmas standards.

I have learned not to read reviews. Period. And I hate reviewers. All of them or at least all but two or three. Life is much simpler ignoring reviews and the nasty people who write them. Critics should find meaningful work.

I thought I was attractive when I shot 'My Big Fat Greek Wedding.' Studio executives and movie reviewers let me know I had a confidence in my looks that was not shared by them.

Superman was never previewed because the producers didn't trust Warners with the film.

I have reviewed literally hundreds of dotcoms in my drive to bring Boomer Esiason Foundation onto the Internet and have selected ClickThings as a partner because of the advanced technology it offers small business and its understanding of the entrepreneurial spirit of the small business community.

For someone who's had the level of success I've had there's been very little critical review of my work which is pretty fascinating.

My fiction is reviewed by the mainstream press by science fiction periodicals romance magazines small press publications and various other journals including some usually devoted to archaeological and other science material.

I'm writing a review of three books on feminism and science and it's about social constructionism. So I would say I'm a social constructionist whatever that means.

In general science journalism concerns itself with what has been published in a handful of peer-reviewed journals - Nature Cell The New England Journal of Medicine - which set the agenda.

I found out about reviews early on. They're mostly written by sad men on bad afternoons. That's probably why I'm less angry than some writers who are so narcissistic they consider every line of every review even a thoughtful one as major treason.