This is truly not directed at anyone today, but just a general thought that's been on my mind as I prepare to subject my own work to theater criticism, and as I read critques of Skip's work on Herringbone (which was ecstatic for the most part) and for his one-act at 59E59 (generally quite pleasant for Skip, with one bitchy exception).
All of us prefer enjoying something we see in the theater rather than hating it. But the irony is that it is more interesting to write about, and also more interesting to read about, something a person really hated than something a person really loved. Somehow, and this seems to be universal, whether they be critics, chatters or just folks, people are more inclined to say "Wow, so-and-so should be a critic" after thy've wittily or cleverly or pointedly pointed out the flaws in something rather than its virtues. My point: we ARE more interesting when we are being negative rather than positive, especially but not only when it comes to critquing works of art or that aspire to art.
End of theory. If I'm wrong,. I hope something will enthusiastically pull apart what i said. 
I'd like to be wrong about this, but I think it pervades theater criticism. Skip used to be a critic and one day his editor told him: It's easy to be bitchy, it's difficult to give specific praise and to give the true proportions of a performance.
I can only offer my perspective and to be specific about Ben's comments of today:
I had no problem with Ben's comments today, because, as he stated, he is a positive person who goes into shows to like them. I didn't enjoy what he said today more than when he loves a show - I just read his comments and take them for what they are - comments. If he'd loved it, I wouldn't have skipped the post or thought "That would have been more fun if he'd hated it."
People on chat boards I have a major problem with, and it's why I won't go near the boards once we open here. I don't really need to read a nineteen-year-old wannabe actor's post about how wonderful Slammer! is and how it's one of the best Fringe shows. I don't need to read people with agendas posting both bad AND good reviews - bad for the competition, good for their own (it happens every single day). I don't need to read the posts of people who are paid to post (it happens every single day). For example, I'm not paranoid in thinking that a couple of people on a specific chat board are just counting the days until we open so they can trash a show they will not be seeing. How do I know I'm not paranoid? Because they've already begun doing it.
As for real paid critics working for the majors, well, you take your chances and you get what you get. I try not to read any of it, but if I HAVE to read, I try to read the positive ones
Some professional critics are shocking - they'll love absolute crap and they'll trash decent and/or good shows. It's less harmful these days than it was (the trashing) but it doesn't make it any more fun to read. I get no enjoyment out of reading a critic take apart a show, just as I get no enjoyment of a critic loving a show.
