The layout scheme uses a lot of tables. The tables are used correctly, but the style isn't uniform. That said, at least it looks like a newsletter and not like a complete clusterfuck.

Navigability: 7

I still think the navigation bar should be a frame, instead of a one-way-in, one-way-out navigation system. That said, there are no broken links, and the links are easy to find (granted you have a scroll bar). If you can't find something, and this site has a LOT to snuff through, there's a search engine embedded on the front page.

Colour Scheme: 8

I personally prefer a uniform colour scheme. Her schemes are pleasant to the eye, but they're not uniform, save for having white text on black background. In a way, that adds a little bit of uniquity to each page, but I still prefer a colour scheme to actually be schematic instead of hodgepodge.

Semantics: 10

She's a writer, and her usage of English reflects this.

Originality: 9

There are quite a few clichés (the "Hate is Not a Family Value" sticker on the front page, to name one right off quick), but when you total that up to the vast amount of original compositions on this site, it's something one can easily overlook.

Delivery: 8

She's too nice. She doesn't cuss enough. That said, she presents arguments to you in a sound manner.

Knowledgeability: 10

Starr's got friends in high places, and her resourcefulness shows. I don't necessarily like her friends, but that's by the way. Considering I haven't seen any book references, I can't comment on her keenness to reference outside sources; that aside, her heart's in the right place. Her rants are pretty fun to read, now that she's rectified most of the inaccuracies.

Style: 8

She could be a lot more crass to drive the point home deeper. She's already admitted this; despite that, you could easily spend three hours here just skimming this site, and unless you come across some misconception that has gone unedited (this site's been active for a few years now now and you know how people grow over time) you'll have a good time reading it.

Fluff Factor: 9

Six months ago, this site had a lot of Burning Times propoganda and stuff that basically made the site one great big cliché. Now, it's not so bad. She and I share similar views on a lot of things, and save for the fact I think her delivery's a bit soft she's not what I would consider "fluffy".

Cool Factor: 9

Even when I hated Starr's guts and considered her an enemy, I still went to her site. It can't suck that badly.

FINAL RATING: 85% or

You might be wondering how a site that gets four and a half stars would receive a Stupid Site Award. Well, about six months ago when I first found this site, it had a lot of things on it I considered fluffy: burning times crap, that sort of thing. I issued her a Stupid Site Award because I saw potential in this site. Despite a bitter conflict between us begun over a mutual acquaintance (friend to her, enemy to me, you know how that goes), we've resolved the issue and the problems I had with the Way, and actually she's kept her head high and her mind open about this. Starr's a human being. She's fucked up, and actually is responsible for giving me a lot of "bad press", meaning she had a page up which basically existed solely to slander me. That said, we've both gone past it and to the best of my knowledge made friends of one another. Regardless, my issues with her were purely personal or irrelevant to our websites and those have been since resolved. Still, her site's pretty decent, and deserving of a good review. I've decided to not recant the SSA because for one, you can't change the past, and also because — hey — it's the highest trafficked subsurface page on this site, and it gives her press. There's no such thing as bad press, you know.

Back to the Reviews Page

Back to the Main Page

If you got here through a link, click here.