cptgaio

Josi: I'll only come back when you let me post the recipes. Bye. P.S.: And don't be argumentative with me since the problem with the site is mine, not yours.

Gabriella: But can you tell me what I've done? Where do you feel like you're being messed with, because honestly, that's not my intention.

No Josi, I didn't miss it. Because you see, on one hand it gave me a lot (but I believe I gave a lot too: as someone up there used to say, we have all been Debaser) on a human level, as I met many wonderful people, but on the other hand, I feel "out of place" here. The fact that many haven’t understood this review goes to show, the fact that users like OleEinar, and I mention him because he intervened, find me ridiculous goes to show, the fact that many consider me "obsessed" with certain things that I won't mention goes to show, and many other things that I won’t mention because I would trigger controversies with people I really don't want to cross paths with anymore. The point is I’m not like that, and although I committed myself to the site, and I have indeed committed, trying to contribute, in my small way, things that I believe could help it grow, in the end the average user (and to make an example without starting a debate because for me it’s a closed chapter, but I mention it just for the sake of the record that for Kosmogabri I am "intrusive and a pain in the ass") has these ideas about me, evidently this is not my place, without resentment or hidden agendas, it just isn’t my place. I hope I have been clear.

And then you need to do something for the DeServer. 10 minutes to open a page :-D

2) @Josi: Allow me to say that you are only considering your personal point of view. In general, I assure you that I know people who could weave the Aeneid even about an Audax Valle vs Castelgomberto Lux third category match :-D. @Gabriella: I recently discovered GiovanniA. Contrary to what one might think, I wasn’t spending my days on DeBaser (among my few merits, I have speed: what seems like a task that takes you days might take me only a few hours. For example, I spend no more than twenty minutes writing a review— not this one, but one of my usuals, including the links, proofreading it, and posting it. Counting all the reviews on DeBaser took me a couple of hours, so no nerdy efforts, just some time I spend during my online leisure hours: especially at night, since I suffer from congenital insomnia and can’t sleep more than three hours a night) :-D. Anyway, yes, I still care about DeBaser because I think it was a great project for democracy and sharing, but I also believe that in the last three years mistakes have been made—certainly in good faith—that have hindered its growth. I don’t want to discuss those mistakes because I’m already out of the site, and I talked about them in previous years, so that discussion is closed. To be honest, (and what I’m about to say is something I’ve thought about for a couple of years before our “August” discussion, and my “ departures,” about which Ole “complained,” were due to this, though I returned moved by the many expressions of esteem I received: that still happens, but I have no intention of returning), beyond the “democratic project” of DeBaser, I had and still have little to share with the site’s critical-artistic approach, and the head of editorials can attest to this (I resigned as an editor with these reasons at least three months before August: a resignation that was later retracted for reasons that are private between me and the head). A gradual distancing would have happened anyway; I certainly hoped it would be without controversy, but being associated with a certain individual, who I see still gives you “satisfaction,” is never pleasant. No controversy. Bye.

I respond in installments 1) @Ole: I care about you too; anyway, aside from the fact that I specified this is not a comeback—I've said it—it's just an impromptu appearance, I think only idiots never change their mind, and I'm always happy if I can make you laugh, for better or for worse. @Bartle: it seems we're still stuck in the same muck for quite a few posts ;-): meaning, we keep telling each other the same things, that I have one idea and you have another. Since my comment was only a joke, I reiterate, and I provided the reasons for it; if you don't find them valid and believe the site's "policy" is right, then I think you are the staff member and I am an ex-user (when I was one, I even gave advice, usually not taken: I'm not complaining, just to be clear, it's only a consideration), so all good but let me continue to think, given the risk of clogging, that just as there are many unrecommendable games, there are just as many periodicals of the same level, that a review (specifically, I might think I'm a good reviewer) of a periodical comic book is much more relevant to the site than a soccer one… (then it’s known that in times of lean cows, any review is welcome, or so it seems I've understood) which does better, as many have written, on the Gazza Forum. Anyway, there was no recrimination in my intent but only fun in noting how things change (though it doesn't seem to me that comics have that much following; in fact, I can reveal to you that many users or casual readers who came to my posts wrote to me that they no longer visit the site because, aside from the fact that there are always fewer of them, they were tired of seeing a troll, guess who, who threw around the term "handicapped" at any comic book enthusiast; so I believe that aside from me and the Punisher, the “clogging” would not have been that many :-D, I bet there are more in soccer?). So, I repeat, you are part of DeBaser, I am not; you have your vision, I have mine. I thought that bringing you up to speed with this impromptu comment about the quantitative figures of the reviews might be useful, if it's not, then no worries: maybe by the end of the year the trend will reverse without doing anything, I hope so, just to clarify, I am a "fan" of the Site, not a detractor; if I weren't, I wouldn't be here. Bye.

Alexander: I repeat, my irony is not meant to be taken seriously, and I've never done so (at least until some time ago when I underwent a campaign of aggression on these pages, but that's another story), so let's leave it at that. Bartleboom: they may be different things, but the end goal, the risk of clogging the site, which was presented to me as the motivation, is the same: you'll agree on that, at least, right? ;-) Since I mentioned some time ago that I seemed to notice a significant drop in reviews, you and a few others told me that wasn't true, it made me smile to see that suddenly this "clogging" issue is no longer a problem. Period ;-)
Now, guys, if you think everything is fine, I don't understand why there's a need to start this process over a harmless (I admit) parody review that wasn't even all that successful: do you like DeBaser this way? Period, I didn't mean to question that; I just wanted to have a little fun... :-D

Gabriella, honestly: the other day I was reading the reviews by GiovanniA and KyraCollins thinking to myself, "how nice that DeBaser still attracts people who want to share intelligently." I really felt like writing again too, then in HP I noticed, the reviewer shouldn't take it personally, that ugly comment about Inter and Milan, and that made me want to be a bit ironic (and I think I did it in a calm way). I don't believe I infringed on anyone's rights and/or dignity by doing that, and for me, the matter was closed there: so no premeditation and no plotting. I'm not making moral judgments, nor am I reciting de profundis: just being ironic while expressing how I see it. If you feel like believing me, do it; if not, then don’t. It’s all good.

I don't understand where Mrs. Gabriella read a sermon in my speech... it seems to me it was just a calm analysis, viewed from a purely personal standpoint, so there are no absolute truths... of what was and what is. I reported the data just out of curiosity, since you were talking a lot about the "state of health," it seemed nice and useful to share something quantifiable (if certain discussions hadn't taken place, I wouldn't have even written the speech... the matter was closed there). And while quality may not be quantifiable, the number of "red blood cells" carrying O2 to the site definitely is. By the way, if you find yourself without quantity sooner or later, you might also find yourself without quality—that's another story. If you feel the need to reflect on it, do so; if not, then just leave it, as I haven't talked about implosion or put out funeral announcements (I've never actually done that: in the past, if the discussion emerged, I only reported numbers... if those are the ones, it’s not my fault).
@Alexander: it's not a matter of principle... I just wanted to joke a bit: if most users, including you, had understood the meaning of the writing, I wouldn't have intervened at all, but instead, it happened the opposite, and this also doesn't depend on me, so I thought it was right to give some explanations: that's all.
Hello.

So, I intended not to intervene any further in this review but I realize that I owe some explanations (I promise I’ll try to be brief :-D). First of all, during these months of absence, I’ve read very few things about DeB, limiting myself to logging in to read the many private messages (thank you all) and to go into the chat (3-4 times) when I saw Carletto or UhUh inside to check how they were doing, so I know little about the current state of Debaser. That said, yesterday, drawn in by two reviews from GiovanniA and KyraCollins (kudos to the site for the two acquisitions), I noticed the review on Inter-Milan and couldn’t resist the impulse to create my own provocative one (to my friend Alexander, whom I respect in return, I can say that I absolutely did not intend to make anyone laugh) that would gently poke fun at the excessive bitterness that emerged in that review and the subsequent comments, and highlight how anyone at this point could review, with the possibility of publication, any match, from the interesting ones to the "useless" ones (like this one, which, beyond the fact that it was for me, was useless even though I hadn’t seen it), as many have pointed out, resulting in at least a hundred eligible matches each week. This made me laugh because a couple of years ago and last year I sent a review to a comic magazine but it was rejected with the motivation (I still have the email) that this risked setting a precedent and invited anyone to write reviews on magazines (I was even cited, with the usual "grace," "Tira & Molla") with the risk of clogging the site. Now, I found it amusing to discover that evidently the "politics" regarding "periodical matters" has changed and I wanted, still gently, to emphasize that fact. Moreover, the review is not at all "nice" (read, for example, that ironic "who wants to fight strictly at least 5 miles from the stadium" which many seem to have overlooked). I’m sorry that many didn’t grasp the ironic meaning, but that was the intent, not to attract, as someone said, hundreds of comments (those who know me know that this has never been my goal on this site). On the other hand, I agree with those who say that the review is pointless, but I believe that the page resulting from it is quite the opposite: for you users of the site, that is, I no longer care much about the discussions about the health of DeBaser (I do not intend to participate in the site anymore, and this review was something extemporaneous...unless the editors consent to publish the review I was talking about above ;-D) even though I have a very clear idea and my friends, still debaserian, Iside and Tanz know it: but I certainly won’t talk about it here...I've received enough jests and insults already. Just one thing, for the sake of precision: today, with my return, I wanted, out of sheer curiosity, to look at a statistic (I know you missed them :-D) about the reviews published on DeB in 2009 (and a partial one for January 2010). Well, the average was 9.79 per day compared to 11.46 the previous year, 15.16 in 2007, and 17.53 in 2006 (to find a worse figure, 8.66, you have to go back to 2005: what is more perplexing, however, is the data for December 2009 (7.83) and January 2010 (for now around 8.20) because "historically" these months mark the debaserian trend for the following months: (meaning that in recent years, at the end of the year, the annual average hovered always about two points below these two months) this means that if the trend is confirmed (which is not statistically significant and I report it for mere "fun") by the end of 2010, DeBaser will drop to about six reviews/day...almost like in 2004, as Josi says ;-). Well, I haven’t been brief…sorry. Bye.