cappio al pollo

I liked them, they reminded me of floors, but I won't listen to this.

I didn't know he had attempted suicide.

Pop doesn’t mean crap, Gate. You have a concept of "pop" that makes the Shirelles in the '60s look avant-garde. Great album nonetheless; here My Chemical Romance were at the height of their transformation, at the peak they reached during their growth, at least up to now. At the same time, I would ask the reviewer to give me a shit face.

GIVE ME A WAR FACE!

We missed you, huh?

In reality, it’s not like I was defending you tooth and nail, you know. On the contrary. For me, in light of what I wrote, you are wrong and you should have simply admitted it (not that there was an urgent need to, but that’s what Paola asked for, and she was right anyway). I simply understood what tripped you up and, although I knew what your intentions were, the sentence remains incorrect. Nothing ungrammatical, but what it means is INVERSELY PROPORTIONAL to what you wanted to say. As for nes, I can't read another comment; I'm sure you didn't understand a damn thing :D!!!

"His stupidity is directly proportional to the quality of this record!"
Let's assign a negative quality to the record; let's define it: the quality of this record is to make crap puppets in the shape of electric-powered flying cows (9v). In this case, the quality is negative (relatively speaking, I may have ridiculed it a bit too much, perhaps; and even debatable: maybe I like to crap out puppets in the shape of flying cows) and not implicit. Therefore, your sentence would become something like: "He is as stupid as this record makes crap puppets in the shape of flying cows powered by electricity (9v)," meaning a lot. In the absence of such precise coordinates, the only value that "quality" takes on is not that of "peculiarity" (see puppet example), because this peculiarity has not been expressed, but rather the canonical one used in evaluating a record; namely, that which has "low quality" and "high quality" as extremes. Thus, if x stupidity = y quality (where the level of stupidity is implicitly high or low), either high or low will be the level of quality. The only alternative would have been to specify the peculiarity in question. I recommend checking the other points in the definition of "quality" on Treccani; point "a" refers to "quality" understood in the aforementioned way in which a characteristic is expressed, which, if logic does not deceive me, cannot be omitted, and if it were to be omitted, it would be like saying: "Mattia is a boy famous for his quality." Which, regardless of the fact that "quality" has never been used so improperly (since the implied quality is negative, as it was in your sentence), can only lead to the question: What quality? Maybe his being charitable? Or his being a jerk to everyone who cares about him? I’m going to cut myself for a moment like an emo.

The context alone (the one in which the album in question is spoken of in the worst possible way, along with your previous negative comments) is not enough; saying that the phrase is wrong -- as you imply something that you can't just imply -- is correct. That's all there is to it. And that's what Paola wanted, maybe obsessively (but it made me laugh quite a bit :D), for you to admit!

You made me regret in just a few lines, in return.