The W
Views: 117113542
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
21.10.16 2243
The W - Print - NY Times prints Harry Potter book review early
This thread has 7 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Thread rated: 6.08
Pages: 1
(417 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
Post (3 total)
Back to Back Survivor

Since: 3.1.02
From: Northern NJ

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 9 hours
#1 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.22
Haven't read it. Won't read it. But for those of you who must - Click Here (

registration may be required

I'm Blind Jimmy Winthrop, Blues singer for the Rich.
Promote this thread!
As young as
he feels

Since: 11.12.01
From: China, Maine

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 1 day
#2 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.30

Registration was not required. Maybe I was already registered. I dunno.

Having not read any of the books, only having seen the movies, I read the review.

There are no spoilers. The author talks about all the books in total without revealing any plot points in this book. I am guessing that's the only way the Times would print this "review."

Nothing to see here for Harry Fans.

CRZ had to edit my profile and close my table for me. I am a bad man.

Since: 2.2.04
From: Austin, TX

Since last post: 441 days
Last activity: 16 days
#3 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.08
Having read the book, I would say it does sorta give away a bit about the ending so I would advise people to stay away until they've read it.
Thread rated: 6.08
Pages: 1
Thread ahead: The Worlds OLNY Reliable Newspaper is out of business...
Next thread: Harry Potter Dead Pool - NO SPOILERS
Previous thread: Comic Book Thread 07/14/2007
(417 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The Washington Post says it is so. ( And later in the article... If this is the case, I'd like to say that it Fucking Sucks, but it's not like Boondocks itself is gone.
The W - Print - NY Times prints Harry Potter book review earlyRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board

©2001-2016 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.09 seconds.