alessioIRIDE

zaireeka, smile: there are those who are worse off than you. I sent a "review" (not fairy tales, but a review... also very connected to the images) of Biùtiful cauntri, a documentary about the illegal disposal of toxic waste in Naples, twice and they canceled it. I rewrote it in a more Christian Democratic way and they rejected it again, and then they publish this bullshit.

Fuck is a filler in my mouth. Grammar doesn't exist, and if it does, I don't care. You remain an idiot gasping on a site copying reviews and wishing strokes, cancers, and tumors. I ask you: have you ever seen someone die of cancer? Have you seen what you become if you get sick with cancer? I have, and I wouldn't wish such a thing on my worst enemy. In fact, despite everything, I wish everyone good health because when the person closest to you fades away in your arms, you're marked forever. Poletti, grow up, and if there's any sense of fairness, you'll be banned just like Flinstone was for doing the exact same thing. I've had enough today; I find you disgusting, and if I could, after what you said, I would whip you.

But are you banning him or not, or are we waiting for him to make important enemies to get rid of him?

Poletti, the most you can be is an idiot. Just one though, the other stays single.

Sure, Paolo is a desperate human case, a total mess, but Poletti remains unreachable. He accuses Paolo of making his "nice tailored fakes" and forgets when he used his fakes to copy reviews. But then, for Christ's sake, dear editors, did you ban Flinstone because he wished cancers, strokes, and various treats, or for some other reason? No, huh, because this isn't the first time Poletti has wished kind things from his empty neurons. In short, it's clear that Flinstone annoyed you and Poletti is indifferent, but this way you really suck. Self-management doesn't mean oligarchy, just because you have a role doesn't mean you stick to your own rules. Are you banning this idiot or are we waiting for him to come insult you in person like Flinstone or Happypippo (which is why you banned them)? The reviewer, anyway, is boring.

literary cases?

bartle, film everything and then put it on youporn... actually, no, youtube

oh that thing about shitting wasn't offensive. it's said by someone who doesn't come to debaser for the reviews. I prefer the pages that break bones ;)

I only saw the standard version and I was stunned. An absolute film for me. << Charlie doesn't surf >> ...which Cattelan then titled one of his works depicting a child sitting by a desk with his hands nailed to the desk. I really liked the review. When you review films, you don't get supported.

In my opinion, you're just going through the usual "it was better before" or "it was better when things were worse." I don’t know what Debaser was like five years ago, but I know how it is now, and the interactions you keep talking about are working and still exist. In a year and a half (I don’t count the days) of being a Debaserian, I’ve met people who I like, and I’ve gone to visit them, even in other European countries, and they’ve hosted me in their homes, let me play in their cities, then they came to mine and we hung out. In short, the interactions are there, and users who come just to act smart tend to move on to other sites fairly quickly—though never too quickly. The interactions are still present, maybe to a lesser extent, but I can't know for sure because I wasn’t here five years ago. As for the quality of the reviews... well, I often find myself reading old pages, and in 90% of the cases, they suck (not this one, which I like). I don’t know, maybe you’re the ones who are a bit tired, perhaps you have less time, visit less often, so you recognize less in the site, but it’s not like Debaser has turned into Ondarock. It’s a river that flows, but it’s the same river (I think, anyway). Bye.