Eneathedevil

To the very nice Nathan, I say: your evaluation is fine with me, I agree that similar reviews might not be to everyone’s taste; certainly, I remain perplexed regarding the accusation that it would be a review suited for first graders, but concerning the sense of astonishment tied to the phrase "review, if it can be called that," I would like to add a few comforting words. You’re new around here, and I've seen that you've immediately unleashed yourself with many lovely takedowns of reviews on your favorites: personally, I'm totally fine with that, but just to give you an idea, I notify you that this is a place where you will find plenty of trash like this, so don't be too surprised by reviews written outside the lines; we are not on rockol or ondarock where you find well-crafted and neatly organized pieces. There’s a lot written by narcissists who aren't particularly inclined to write descriptive reviews, the same reviews that you’ve already labeled with Zilian phrases like "poor" or "terrible." Here, we do it a bit differently, there’s a bit of everything, and you don't necessarily have to appreciate the encyclopedic and depersonalized writing style. Bye, dear.

...So I have nothing to seek in De Gregori that "still exists": he is still a good author, but I don't like his voice, I don't care for his overt politicization, and his songs no longer captivate me. I admire him (consideration of the person), but I don’t listen to his latest works (...on the singer-songwriter). But the fact that I admire him doesn't imply that I have to listen to him. Ah, for the record, De Gregori is 54 years old, not 56. Anyway, if you want to clarify, that would be better, ciao ciao.

I respond to the last two contributions. So, Zuckina, I don't fully understand your objection. First of all, I don't understand why, by fixating on a sentence that I wrote in a subdued tone and with the necessary clarifications, you make judgments about how I see De Gregori. I certainly don't consider him an "icon"; I see him for the profession he has, which is that of a singer-songwriter, and until the early '80s he had a whimsical and disenchanted taste that he no longer has today: with this, as I emphasized, I don't mean to say that De Gregori is terrible now; he still writes beautiful things that, however, have nothing to do with the wonderful intimate stories of "Natale," "Due Zingari," "Quattro Cani," etc. For this reason, I say that that De Gregori "is no longer there." But what I really find difficult to understand is the objection that I don’t consider him "as a person." Well? I don't quite get that. Should an author, a director, a writer be considered as a person? What kind of evaluation is that? If that were the case, I wouldn't watch another Allen film, of which I adore all his works: as a person, he leaves much to be desired. The same goes for Chaplin. And the same applies to music: I like Battiato, but he can often be insufferably pretentious without managing to make interesting arguments like those in his songs, and I adore Battisti who was a grumpy bear; in short, it’s a matter of necessary distinctions.

Nature and the laws of nature lie hidden in the night; God said, "Let there be Newton!" and there was light.

Hello, excuse the usual intrusion, but once again my gaze has lingered on a matter that is at least important, that of the fragmentation of the self through the multiplicity of fictitious identities. It is now taken for granted that this syndrome, particularly common in internet contexts such as the one in question, is driven by a variety of motivations often equivalent to the state of the art: escapism, multifacetedness, histrionics. However, I am led to understand that in this matter, the excessive multiplication of fictitious identities is also associated with a new etiology, that quite curious and avant-garde phenomenon of "nickname self-pleasure"; it is not the identity that matters, in essence, but the beauty of the nickname, even more evident if enriched with accents, unusual graphemes, and polynomial compositions. A rather curious matter, but perhaps analyzable, why not, in private, in my welcoming study in Milan, surrounded by greenery. Let's talk about it. Prof. Katsikoulos, Professor of Applied Herbalism and Seed Science at the Politecnico di Milano. Office hours at the DBS (Department of Seed Biotechnology) Wednesday and Thursday from 10:30 to 11:30, Room VII.

No, you are the holothurian.

Yes, yes, Gay Like Mint. It's really you.

Gay Like Mint, now you've overwhelmed poor Jim, unable to provide the right answer. Come on, come on, jiji, now it's your turn, be the Sibyl.

I don't aspire to that much. Anyway, I'd say 1983. 1-10 is the range of the verses, nothing more. If you want to know the exact day and month, it’s the combination of numbers that yields the smallest positive difference (first constraint), and the maximum sum (second constraint, once the first is satisfied) respectively between the day number and the month number.

Report you, my friend's dick, and therefore my friend? For that nonsense? Come on, let’s not kid around. What does the date have to do with it?