Hetzer

God Dog, I jump on debaser after months and I find, besides a million useless notifications, an orbital bullshit like this on the homepage.. What the hell are you smoking??

Madonna group, Madonna's disco.. I fell in love with "First Wave Intact".. The other works are highly recommended.

One of the most dull and fucking annoying summer hits in memory, "Logico" really stinks.. To claim it's the best song on the album is like saying you're reviewing a coaster.. He's a useless little singer-songwriter for summer make-out sessions, a wimpy little dude with a pretentious attitude.. Crap..

If I don't curse, look...

And we are always there, distorting reality: "I read your deductions, the sites discussing them have come out, and the names of their authors. And since what is being discussed is your deduction and not the essence of the articles"… Unlike you, no one here needs to deduce anything, just READ. You don't know a damn thing about the essence of the articles because YOU HAVEN'T READ THEM, you don't know what they say and how they say it… You're pathetic and seriously: you have nothing more to say…
Last response and last slap in the face: ridiculous, you don't even know what is meant by spoken language… “The expression spoken language identifies a set of structural and functional characteristics that manifest primarily, BUT NOT EXCLUSIVELY, when the language is used through the phonetic-auditory channel in natural and spontaneous conditions. Spoken language is therefore made up of a set of linguistic uses produced by the specific enunciative conditions of speaking, not (OR ONLY PARTIALLY) observable in other modes of transmission” (…) “spoken language has become part of the linguistic norm, as a portion of the basic reference system, even for NON-SPOKEN uses. All this emerges, among other things, from the fact that even in formal spoken situations (e.g., in political language) OR IN CONTEMPORARY WRITING (e.g., in newspapers, but also in narrative) traits of spoken language appear…” lingua parlata in “Enciclopedia dell'Italiano” – Treccani
Even here, you don't know what the hell you're talking about or rather, you understand it perfectly but you twist it to call me a retard… You didn't disappoint until the very end, well done!

“I thank you for having raped me of a subjunctive”.. Stop clinging to this nonsense; in spoken language, you can also use the indicative. I bet you do it too, so don’t be a hypocritical child, you’re tedious.. “feel free to keep posting me stuff in English (wrong but who cares)” how can you call things wrong when you can’t read them? Simple, you can’t. Therefore, you don’t know what you’re talking about. “are you going to stop posting me ads???” How can you say it’s all ads when you haven’t read the articles in question (especially the one written by the director).. Let me tell you: you can’t say that, your arrogance, ignorance, and dishonesty are clear.. You judge things randomly that you haven’t read; you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about. I already argued this two weeks ago; you called me an idiot, a liar, and blind; I reiterated the point, I pointed out that someone else (fine, not everyone, but there are some...) thinks like me and you can only spasmodically repeat “I don’t know English, I can’t read what you post, but it’s definitely all ads and says wrong things”.. You’re as credible as any random statement by Daniele Capezzone.. I reiterate, you judge things you don’t know, you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about.. Your last desperate climb on soapy glass has turned into yet another plunge into shit; it’s become boring to see you doing somersaults, it’s now obvious that you have no idea what to say anymore.. Your dishonesty is proven, now go study some English for God’s sake, at least next time you’ll come off as less pathetic..

"In all of this, I don’t see what Gareth Edwards’ Godzilla has to do with it," oh right, the ignorant doesn’t know English... Well, on the same page (Monster Movies), both Monsters by Gareth Edwards and Godzilla by Gareth Edwards are discussed... It’s still all about monster movies; or maybe not, perhaps they are all blind/stupid/fools/seeing-red-when- writing-nes... What else? Oh yes; the official site of Monsters: Monsters (Official Movie Site) - Starring Whitney Able and Scoot McNairy - Now on VOD, DVD and Blu-ray™ - Trailers, Pictures & More There’s a banner that quotes some of the press reviews. The Austin Chronicle writes: “Monsters is the best MONSTER MOVIE of the millennium”... Again, they consider it a monster movie: but you, claiming to know more than me, tell me “I: I saw Monsters and just watching it is enough to understand that it really has nothing to do with monster films”... Strange, how come everyone considers it a monster movie? Are they all ignorant fools who haven’t seen the film? You’re a pathetic clown... Gareth Edwards himself says it too: Classic Feature: The Making Of Gareth Edwards' Monsters | Features | Empire The article is written by him, it opens with “I always wanted to make a monster movie,” and concludes with “We'd made a movie... not just that, but a monster movie!”... Not to mention what’s in between... So what are you still talking about? What the hell do you want to know, when you can’t even read what the director himself says about HIS film? Does it piss you off to see that everywhere websites and articles pop up where Monsters is defined as a monster movie... This is because you’re a pathetic and arrogant coward; you don’t want to understand that it’s a matter of points of view, and that Monsters IS a monster movie, related to Godzilla, Cloverfield, and other monster movies... It’s different, more original, definitely better, but it’s a monster movie... I’ve already pointed out to you multiple times that it’s evidently normal for someone other than me to consider Monsters a monster movie since it shares essential elements of monster films... And you come to tell me: “they’re two completely different planets, and, as usual, it’s not a matter of points of view”... It’s clear now that you’re rambling nonsense and acting tough about things you don’t know a damn thing about...

Now that you've gotten yourself into trouble, you come to me saying: “I came to the page to talk about the movie”; you're as credible as a “Mistero” dossier on woodland gnomes... Let me explain again what it's about, since you clearly don’t understand and can’t figure it out on your own. It’s about the fact that it's normal for someone other than me to consider “Monsters” for what it is, namely a kaiju film, a movie about monsters with destruction, escapes, soldiers... This clearly pisses you off; it bothers you so much that you go out of your way to call me an idiot and discredit an article YOU HAVEN'T EVEN READ... An article written a year and a half ago as part of an overview of Western monster movie productions (what a coincidence); who cares when, how, and why it was brought back, what matters are the contents, the message... But you don’t know the message, you’re not capable of understanding it, and that's why the only damn “analysis” you can muster is twisted, convoluted, and ridiculous... There’s a reality check: Monsters is also a monster movie that presents the “ingredients” I pointed out two weeks ago; how these elements are used and how they create something much more complex and original than average is another matter entirely... And you’re passing judgment on things you don’t even know about; you don’t know English and you can’t read an article that objectively, for anyone who has seen and appreciated it, offers a very clear and shareable analysis of why Monsters is a great film, about monsters and not just that... But I repeat, you don’t know a damn thing... This is what it’s about, a point of view I express and share, which you are desperately trying to dismantle just because it bothers you, because you’re intolerant and dishonest, and because you tend spasmodically to want to prove you know more than everyone else... It’s about the fact that if I say that Monster is related to Godzilla, I’m neither an idiot, nor a loser, nor someone who hasn’t seen the film. In fact... we were talking: in the end, there’s nothing more to say, you have already fully demonstrated what a soft cookie you are...

It's already serious that you pretend to know what the article is about while being so ignorant that you can't even read it. What makes you a miserable dishonest person is that you go out of your way to discredit a written piece you can't read simply because it presents concepts I've already expressed. It's clear that you've realized how uncomfortable such ideas are for you; otherwise, this ridiculous attempt to diminish their value wouldn't make sense. Besides, even if it were an advertisement (which it isn't..), where would the problem be? Oh right, “that advertising is often misleading is a fact”.. God, you're pathetic and you really have the nerve if you dare to push such arguments. I admit, against this desperate and petty falsehood, I can't compete. “I still haven't understood what your point is.” And it shows, damn it; grow up, study English, re-read the comments (then you will finally discover what it's about..) and come back when you no longer feel like babbling about things you don't know a damn thing about.
PS: “it’s not that I studied French”.. Well, I also studied French, as well as English.. You know, it's not impossible to learn another foreign language. Give it a try, then maybe you can find out what that famous article is REALLY about.. Try again, you'll be luckier..

Here's nes: a miserable dishonest person, ready to call everyone an idiot and throw judgments, only to find themselves immersed in shit.. I've already told you, you're a small, pathetic, arrogant cowardly mystifier; after this colossal slap in the face you've given yourself, your insults are worth less than zero. “you started talking about things you didn't know,” he comes to tell me, the one who starts with “I haven't read the article, I don't know English”.. XD Thanks for making me burst out laughing with this pathetic piece of shit, loser..