mien_mo_man

I was really into Loaded. It’s just that Doug had to go his own way! As for Reed, well, he’s a great guy, but it’s known that he’s always lived off others!

you didn’t tell me I’m a piece of shit, but the people reading your comment (those same few folks, anyway) read and say: look at this piece of shit, trying to look cool, pretending to be the one who reviews things that don’t exist (and that no one wanted :D), what’s he come up with... nothing less than a criminal. you’re not involved, but you still make me look like a jerk. and a simple "sorry" in parentheses isn’t enough. I wrote "if in the three comments I receive I have to come off as a piece of shit" and not "if in the three comments I receive I have to read that I am a piece of shit." hearing "piece of shit," and realizing that I’ve come off as one are two very different things. you shouldn’t put words in my mouth that I didn’t say. as for you, up until that post of yours, I always liked you, and not just for your legs, but especially for your style and your tastes. as for Suzi Quatro, well I don’t have that record, but I have another one with a similar cover, a compilation, featuring the macho guys from your review, one of whom in the photo looks like he’s downing a can of beer :D and even that one the story describes as "glam."

I changed my account... starting this afternoon, I'm the bastard who had the audacity to review that pedophile Gary Glitter. I don’t even believe that if nobody cares about this review, it's the reviewer’s fault, if that can console you... I’ve already said that what remains unreviewed is nothing but a sort of "scrap"... it’s true that it annoys you a bit when you review an "unreleased" and get 3 comments, while someone reviewing Iron Maiden gets 30. It's just another annoyance, nothing less, but also and especially nothing more. I enjoy reviewing an unknown artist, even though I already know I’ll only get three comments. But if, by reviewing him, in those three comments I receive, I also have to be seen as a piece of shit without morals, well, if you don’t mind, that really bothers me a lot.

I always include something biographical, unrelated to music, in my reviews. See my review of Michael Learns to Rock, all my reviews of Adam Ant, many of The Cars, etc. It's true: no one reads my reviews, partly because I don't review Michael Jackson, but Gary Glitter... it's my choice and it's a reasoned one, if you believe me, to review what has never been reviewed. But in fact, if it has never been reviewed, there must be a reason... how long has this site existed? Throughout this time, much of what has not been written was not written because it was "discarded," deemed unworthy of being reviewed. That's how I felt when I wrote about The Cars and Ocasek (and the comments that came in were like "you again with these guys?"), or when I reviewed Ant, whose records received low scores because the character was commercial trash... so, if we dig up music from the past, those not on DeBaser are as if they have been "discarded." Bolan yes, Glitter no. Almost everything possible on Nick Drake, barely anything on Todd Rundgren (this morning I posted his first album from '68 with Nazz - a review that no one will... as usual); Joy Division and New Order yes, The Psychedelic Furs no, etc. This had already been discussed in a review of Zeitgeist, the umpteenth one, some time ago... as for the "fuck you" I directed at you, I don’t like to come off as someone who had a big ego and such bad taste... and you, with your comments, made me come across exactly as that kind of person... So from now on, for the sake of fairness and to remedy this, why don’t you make every single soul who writes a review on Michael Jackson look like a fool? So, returning to the "fuck you" I dedicated to you (which I don’t take back), well, you might as well accept it: at least here on DeBaser there aren’t just those who compliment you on your (really) beautiful legs, but chère.

I think that if the pedophile is in Vietnam, where the legal guarantees are from the third world, he’s in prison after twenty minutes, whereas if someone is a pedophile in the USA, where there are the best lawyers on the planet, where if you want you can change the jurors, where a trial lasts twelve years, eventually you end up in a situation where everything ends with a feast and wine. Then I think that if the defendant is the most famous pop star in the world, the man with the most fans in the world, the man with the most copies sold in the world, that’s one thing; another thing is if the defendant is Mr. who-the-hell-is-that (and who the hell is Gary Glitter? especially in a country like Vietnam?). Just look at the comments: the first one, "I like this record, that song makes me dream, that one makes me sick," etc... (and not a word about pedophilia) while for the second it’s almost all insults. Even my grandmother, who has had Alzheimer’s since 1989, knows who Michael Jackson is (while she hasn’t recognized me for a decade): it’s easy like that. Even if you are guilty, in fact, even if you are guilty and are also convicted, others will treat you as if you were innocent… indeed, even more: they will treat you as if all this story had never existed. Here he is, right in front of you, it’s Michael Jackson, and you think: Michael Jackson, incredible, I’m talking to Michael Jackson! Instead, you find yourself facing Gary Glitter and think: get him out of my sight before I kill him, that son of a bitch! This is called hypocrisy. Whatever the meaning of the term pedophilia, I know perfectly well what the meaning of the term HYPOCRISY is.

So, kosmogabri, you need to know that in this world, sooner or later, everyone gets the moment of being told to fuck off... I don't know if it has happened to you yet... if it hasn't, well, I reluctantly believe your moment has arrived... there are over twenty reviews of Michael Jackson's albums, an artist that you probably don’t like since you left comments (two) only on Vic Sorriso's review, neglecting to comment on all the other reviews. Well, in those two unique comments of yours, you never used derogatory terms, not a word about Jackson, his attitudes, nor a pig, not a swine, not a bastard, not a pedophile, perverted, deviant, insane, etc.... not a single insult! Just a technical comment on Vic Sorriso's review. And that's it. In my review, on the other hand, in two comments, a sea of insults. Now explain to me why when talking about Michael Jackson, people think of the artist, the songs, or more simply the quality of the review, WHILE IF I TALK ABOUT GARY GLITTER THE ONLY THING YOU WRITE IS THAT HE'S A PIG, THAT HE SHOULD DIE, THAT YOU WOULD KILL HIM WITH YOUR BARE HANDS! I want to know why the hell Michael Jackson is an artist (debatable, commercial, too mythologized, too famous to be real, too out of touch with his delusions of grandeur) while Glitter is a pig to be slaughtered alive... What gives? Are American children less important than Vietnamese ones? If you fuck a six-year-old Hispanic-American, isn’t it the same as fucking a six-year-old Vietnamese? And don’t give me the crap that Jackson hasn’t been found guilty yet, while Glitter is already in jail: if Jackson had lived in Vietnam, which is not America, he would have already been hung upside down by the balls. Now you want to make me feel like the only asshole with the bad taste to review a pedophile, when, as I’ve already told you, there are more than twenty people who have reviewed a pedophile named Michael Jackson. It’s not enough for you to specify in parentheses that you’re sorry: it’s the usual story of the little girl who first tarnishes your image in the eyes of the global population just for the sake of having something to gossip about and then puts on her doe-eyed and innocent girl face and says, “I’m sorry.” Sorry is not enough. Fuck off.

I listened to this album... the Travis are nobody. Now I finally have the certainty of it.

p.s.: lou barlow forever

splash oh sea!!! where is your Poseidon’s song tonight?

Master. They have always been liked, never really explored. Is this the right time?