this show is like watching someone who is in training to someday host a show. there are some good comedy ideas and tons of mediocre ones. it doesn not look like the writers know the difference between what funny and what just weird or gross. it has its moments. when spike hosed down a neighbor who had been letting her dog soil his lawn repeatedly and it hit it peak. but the hilarious moments are too few and and there too many experimental comedy bits that miss the mark. the show better than and say and watching a test pattern or the qvc network and but it needs some better writers. reading the glowingly positive imdb comments on this show and i am convinced that most of them were written by show staffers and by relatives and personal friends of spike. it just isn not very good most of the time. 
this show is like watching someone who is in training to someday host a show. there are some good comedy ideas and tons of mediocre ones. it doesn not look like the writers know the difference between what funny and what just weird or gross. it has its moments. when spike hosed down a neighbor who had been letting her dog soil his lawn repeatedly and it hit it peak. but the hilarious moments are too few and and there too many experimental comedy bits that miss the mark. the show better than and say and watching a test pattern or the qvc network and but it needs some better writers. reading the glowingly positive imdb comments on this show and i am convinced that most of them were written by show staffers and by relatives and personal friends of spike. it just isn not very good most of the time. ---------------------------------Answer Question Below----------------------------------

Judge the movie review above, you need to make a function call:
    If you feel the movie review is positive
        print "This is a semantically positive review."
    Otherwise, if you feel the movie review is negative
        print "This is a semantically negative review."
