cptgaio

Thank you for the compliment on the review, but it goes without saying that I disagree with "boring" (even though this term varies from person to person) and "static" when referring to the Peanuts, because they are the inception of the same humorous genre in the world of balloons. The characters are not static; on the contrary, their traits (from their personalities to their feelings, including ethical values and lighter aspects) are "told" with a complexity that has influenced at least two generations (now the third) of cartoonists who have drawn from Schulz's ability to give "choral" weight to the tiniest "adventures" that had never been seen before his arrival. And let's not forget the longevity and the incredible variety of situations that Schulz managed to create over 50 years, always "splashing" around the same 7-8 characters: incredible and pure genius (as well as poetry in its wild state).

You are right, but that's where it brews... I'm just an idiot, and that's it ;-)

I thank Hetfield for the comment. @Nosebleed: more passwords? When you have one, as secure as possible, that's enough. Of course, if such a little thing gives you a headache, I see the advice on horse racing or modeling as a compliment. Aloha.

A thousand thanks to those who showed up. Regarding the use of various accounts with "Girlanachronism," I only review comics: I comment as "cptgaio" to let you know who's behind it. That's it. I could explain my other accounts and why they were created (for example, "emofiliaco" was born as a joke after a "debate" with Iside, and I decided to use it to sign my first editorial on 11-07-2007; to be honest, I also ventured into a "zot!" review with that nickname, even though they weren't called that back then..., and then I did a second one, and more will follow) but I risk boring you (I already get enough accusations of doing so ;-) ). But if you really want me to, I can do it. To the question, "Okay, thanks for the explanations, but still, what’s the point?" my answer is, "Because in a site like DeBaser, where usually names and surnames aren't used and we're all fakes of ourselves, I feel free and encouraged to be multiple (Isi would say one and three...).” What I can assure you is that I only have "revealed" accounts (traceable from my personal page) and not "fake" ones. To be honest, I also own the account "cptgay," but I created it to "steal" it from the many pranksters that roam these pages, and I believe I’ve used it (always with my friend Isi) two or three times, and always in the "open." I hope I’ve clarified your doubts. Bye and thanks again!

I understand, Isi, but even my first 1 didn’t lower the average (the second one slipped by default). I have other parameters to weigh the 1s or the 5s and I certainly don't look at the ranking of those who give them, but something else...;-) In the meantime, I thank Jargon for stopping by.

Why hasn't it gone down?

In my opinion, "Cow and Chicken" had surreal moments that far exceeded this (but then again, it's a matter of personal vision), and yes, it's true that it wasn't drawn very well, but I think that was intentional (just like "South Park," for example) to enhance the paradoxical effect... then again, it's a matter of taste, but I find it a bit exaggerated to call it "boring" ;-)

here...

It’s not possible for my review to have a higher average than the reviewed, so I’m bringing it down. Thanks to everyone: too kind!

For me, it's a solid 5.