Hetzer

I don't know. Maybe time is precisely this transformation of matter and molecules (I'm also thinking about water and rocks, for example). If they transform, they change, then the time that we measure in seconds, minutes, years, etc., is given precisely by their changing. Its effects are time itself, or rather, the effects of the natural change of everything are called time.. Huh?? Hmm!

If I may, I doubt it is correct to define the abstract concepts of time and space. Of course, they are not like weight or mass, which are manageable and materially measurable, but time is not abstract; time acts because chemical reactions and physical elements change over time. We count it to better organize our lives, but even if we didn't count it, time would still act upon us. So it's not abstract; rather, it is immaterial, but that's not the same thing. Abstract are ideas, which then, through certain actions in specific fields of knowledge, can express concrete elements. And space as well, how can one say it is abstract? It can be measured, and we ourselves are space within space, because we occupy space and modify it when we move, thus interacting time and space with each other. If they were abstract phenomena, one could teleport, but unfortunately, they are physical laws that act and can be measured with precision... At least, I believe so. O.o

In my opinion, in the past, controversies were worse, much more sterile and uncivil. Now it seems to me that the level has improved a bit, also because the abolition of anonymous comments has greatly benefited the situation. At least, I hope so!

Great album.. I would have given it five, although I confirm everything you've written..

I beg your pardon, the eagerness in typing betrayed me...

Jokes aside, the big guy has made a pretty good point.. I should give it a try too, let’s see what they say..

Geenoo, I know it wasn't you who used the word frustrated, but it still came up; I wasn't just referring to you. I know it's not all a teeming mass of corruption and scheming, but there's plenty of this mess, both at the top and on the ground floor, I find it obvious. I want to say that I don't envy Travaglio. My criticism arises from the fact, as I explained, that he has sprouted from the system he condemns, he lives it and shares its "success" (in the case of the system, I'm ironically using the term success, just to be clear); when I say he feeds off it, I don't mean he profits from it, but rather he clings to it as a source of vitality, even professionally. Period. Stop. I don't care how much he earns (I get more indignant about Grillo’s income, if we want to talk about money..), nor how he spends his money. I repeat, good for him, he does well. Square balls? I wouldn't know, I return to condemning his alliance with the crafty Santoro and his messianic attitude, like a daily pisotlotto from atop his pedestal. I think Saviano has more guts, even though he's disappointed me lately; he has also gotten entangled in the wicked system, going on TV to make his appearances after an instrumental campaign against the censorship perpetrated by a Rai in his hands, only to then take money from an Endemol production, owned by Mediaset. Something doesn't add up. Oh well. I just hope I haven't offended anyone. Have a good evening..

Why should it be hypocritical to acknowledge the undeniable talents of someone like Travaglio? I reiterate, he does his job excellently. But can I say that his attitude, in my opinion, doesn’t work? That he has built a persona and a career around sterile denunciation? Is there something wrong with having this opinion? Vitols is not mistaken in citing his love partnership with Santoro, the classic hypocritical preacher who dresses like a martyr while fattening his rear end with public money. And Travaglio is part of the same system. Can I not appreciate him? No, because from certain comments it seems that criticizing Travaglio automatically makes you a sad person, a mudslinger, a frustrated individual. This seems to me a myopic and unsettling attitude, not unlike those who say "if you speak ill of Silvio, then you’re a communist friend of the red judges." Let’s take it easy, dear Geenoo; what do you think, that I don't know what politics or public administration is? I also work as a journalist; at the provincial level, mind you, but there’s plenty of filth to see there too. And there, you also find yourself facing opposition, subjected to pressures (bipartisan) and so on, because some things shouldn’t be said too loudly. I try to do my job seriously, without unnecessary ideological implications; and the result is angry phone calls to the mayor's house, or the "kind" pressures from some councilor not to publish certain things, eviction threats, and all that. I’ve lived it firsthand, and I’m not proud of it; I feel neither a martyr nor a hero. What does Travaglio risk, up there, in the castle he has built? What does he risk from his perch on "Annozero," or from his sermons online? Can I allow myself to distrust him, and think that he is a product and expansion of the system he condemns? Not as someone who is sad or frustrated, but as someone who has formed certain opinions in light of specific personal experiences.

This would be one way to put it.. In reality, I know very well that my off-the-cuff comments are sometimes too instinctive and not very reflective, that's all..

To the reviewer: "the only remaining heroes, who openly continue to carry on their solitary battle": hence the definition of "lonely hero"... I have simply paraphrased, perhaps improperly. I believe that a character like Travaglio "works" only as an outsider, presenting himself as a free thinker, thus self-providing an aura of unassailable objectivity. It’s his technique and he is well-suited for it, and, I repeat, he does his job excellently. I think that openly taking a side would make him lose much of his credibility, contrary to what you assert. In what way would I have attributed all the weight of failure to him? I simply said that his denunciations were not enough because the people he condemns are still there, in their seats, and his unassailable constructs have failed their purpose. Perhaps I am mistaken in this, I don't know, but his denunciations certainly did not contribute to awakening the country. Where did I say he was wrong? I simply don’t get drunk on his crusade because, yes, I think he is a self-satisfied opportunist; I don't believe he is a hero, I think he is just another declination of Italian journalism, which makes denunciation and slapping the powerful its new legitimacy.