R2061478

I've already expressed what I think about Vasco, and in my opinion, he is a great entertainer, someone who carries on his own discourse, an idea, without being influenced or scared. However, I prefer Ligabue, who is more balanced and profound; if there is a flaw in Vasco, it's his tendency to philosophize too much, fixating on things that are somewhat trivial. Anyway, you write good reviews.

Anyone can comment "caustically." Recognizing good music, however, is a different story. And you clearly can't, if you say that Ligabue doesn't create quality work. I'm talking about human depth, not about experimentation, virtuosity, avant-garde, and all that stuff. I'm talking about someone who has the strength and courage to expose themselves, and they do it well, with humility, in a measured way. Unlike you, who exposes yourself very little, and in a half-assed manner.

Why don’t you write a review yourself, Algol?

Listening to Ligabue again (even the relatively recent songs, like "il giorno di dolore..."), they truly are courageous, constructive, strong songs that, in these times of indifference, insensitivity, and irresponsibility, are indeed something extraordinary. It’s a shame for all those people who are so cushioned and dumbed down that they can’t grasp this aspect, which makes Ligabue an exceptional person.

Very often (almost always), journalists provide simple reporting without knowing anything about the environment and the world they are describing. By pretending to be impartial, they achieve the opposite effect, giving the public a distorted, superficial, and anti-elitist view of reality. It's also true that TV gives people what they want; that is, ordinary people want to stay calm and hidden at home, at most going out a bit in the evening to the local spots. If people (the majority of people) had a real interest in being informed about what is happening, the management of media would change. Instead, the media are run by scoundrels who take advantage of the public's disinterest, inexperience, and ineptitude, keeping them subdued with false alarms that generate fear and mistrust. As a result, those who want to maintain control can do so comfortably, as long as everyone is afraid to expose themselves.

The passion for a team is understandable; I am also a supporter of Lazio and I used to go to the stadium (in the stands, though, to watch the game, not to create chaos). Certain curva fans despise those who sit in the stands instead of in the curva, considering them "rabbits," but I believe a rabbit is someone who cannot uphold their own reasons with everyone. And those who want to create chaos at all costs then run away from a policeman with a baton don't seem particularly courageous to me... Football can and should be a source of gathering and good initiatives, as it is for many ultras, but it can also be an excuse to fight, destroy, and cause chaos, as it is for many other ultras. It's up to each person to decide for themselves.

In the link I posted, there is a space between "com" and the first slash /. To see it, you need to copy, paste, and delete that space. Bye

Football fandom has been defined by the esteemed ethologist Desmond Morris as a remnant of tribal culture, when two tribes would massacre each other simply for being rivals. For example, the Cheyenne and the Pawnee were enemy tribes, and it was enough for one to stand out to be killed by another from the rival tribe.

heheehe... I wonder who made you such a proposal…