47

DeRank ™: 1,78

DeAge™ : 7150 days • Here since 12 november 2006

The Beatles Revolver

6 aug 08

Voto:

The album generally hints little, but a lot in the pop realm; some tracks are nothing short of remarkable (yellow submarine is terrible, though) really annoying reviewer.

the opening of the album is fabulous, a direct neural interface towards dreamy and ethereal atmospheres; then at some point a bit of boredom peeks through. the band will definitely do better with amnesiac shortly after.. speaking of '66 I would leave aside the beetles’ colt and would mention freak out and blonde on blonde.

Neu! Neu!

4 aug 08

Voto:

ok, hi

Neu! Neu!

4 aug 08

Voto:

you didn't respond "in kind" and I didn't want to "silence you". my penultimate comment, if you will, is "logical", no flying donkey in sight. with this sultry heat, it’s the thoughts that, as far as I can see, really can't take flight.

Neu! Neu!

4 aug 08

Voto:

"Is my comment relevant to the page? The page is funny, so by transitive property, you meant to say that my comment was funny, it was ridiculous." Okay, no seriously derogatory intent (and not particularly thought out either), but I understand how it might come across, and I apologize. I'd also say it's the end of the discussion. (We wrote the last post at the same time.)

Neu! Neu!

4 aug 08

Voto:

Well, good manners; the search for the most orthodox way to say basically the same thing, changing only the form. You essentially wrote to me "Aò at 47, but fuck off, don’t be a pain in the ass, you’re an idiot, etc.", while I, perhaps in a less orthodox way, criticized what I thought was a reckless statement. A sentence written in a certain way, with certain nuances, is the result of logical thought about how it should finally come across, but the message in one’s head is clear and "without frills". The point is that I didn’t want to offend, whereas you exploded as one does against someone who doesn’t want to be questioned... Now, did you not understand the "message", or could it be that perhaps the arrogant and trouble-making one is you?

Neu! Neu!

4 aug 08

Voto:

attacked you by offending you? logically paraphrase comment 41 and "find the offense"... criticism=offense? happy for you. by the way, you talk about ideological pluralism and then you come out with "everyone behaved like 47 (in this case, 47 was the most 'kind' and refined), that is, they attacked me by offending me because I expressed a simple opinion of mine (as radical as it could be in some cases... but hey, it's what I think; should I apologize to someone? I always expressed it in a civil manner anyway) and they did not share it..." As above, you claim that I "attacked you by offending you"? reconsider your way of engaging in conversations, and give yourself the benefit of the doubt when you think you don't say nonsense...

Neu! Neu!

4 aug 08

Voto:

You’ve earned your moment of critique. I "criticized" an opinion, not the person who expressed it; it may be that I didn’t grasp the intention behind it, but I’m not in your head and frankly, the phrase as it was sounded like I thought it sounded. But honestly, who cares? If I want to make notes or observations on comments on a site for comments (and reviews), I’ll refrain from doing it on yours. And then stop with certain comments that sound like a kid who just discovered how the world works; they’re amusing. Logic and illogic are only functional for those who hide their ineptitude behind good manners and heaps of (ridiculous) machistic dialectic, which only serves to make you look like a fool.

Neu! Neu!

2 aug 08

Voto:

lux, are you an idiot? Nice pointless rant. It’s no surprise that you support instinctiveness in art; it’s sad to point out that yours is just unjustified. And if you think I’m a troublemaker or a fascist (why would that be?), you’ve understood very little. (Not that you’re obliged to do so, but don’t write nonsense). And go take care of yourself, maybe then you’ll think before you write.