puntiniCAZpuntini

DeRank : 14,44 • DeAge™ : 8159 days

  • Contact
  • Here since 21 october 2003
Voto:
Damn, someone understands Geeno! It's unbelievable. Explain to us how to solve the global financial crisis, it’s easier, so you can pull it off in half an hour.
Voto:
You've basically declared that you have terrible taste.
Voto:
Once again this summer they are coming together for a tour (already happened a couple of years ago, bless the internet and the lack of money). Light schedule on a Saturday in July, in London: Mf Doom, them, Portishead (maybe some others, but who cares).
Voto:
Only scudetti, I think just the one from the Galacticos during the full Galactica era. For the rest, they have cups like wheelbarrows; it seems they’re missing none of the available ones.
Voto:
I'm also glad that after some time you remember certain episodes. You're famous all over Italy; I posted the link to that review in several forums to make everyone laugh.
Voto:
I always fondly remember a review by Gallagher of Kaos. The good Gallagher talked about songs featuring chico'md, songs with beats by Deda, and songs featuring Melma & Merda. The good Gallagher had listened to an album where the same person sang under different names (just for laughs) and he didn't even notice. And when I pointed it out to him, he even said, "No, that's not true." A Rap album, mind you, not instrumental. This is one of the users with the biggest slices of ham ever seen; we knew he had them in his ears, and now we discover that little by little, the slices have made their way to his brain.
Voto:
<< Time is eternal, it keeps flowing forever, whatever happens, it’s there. One could say that everything lies within time and it consumes its cycles within it. But there’s actually no such thing as my time or your time; there exists an objective time for everyone, in which many things begin and end. The proof that it is not time that produces chemical or physiological effects is that if puntinicazpuntini finally decides to kick the bucket and then their body gets frozen, we will find it exactly as it was, until someone unfreezes it. In short, time for me is like the lens of a camera. >> When you rent a car, and they ask you "how long do you want to keep it," you answer like this. In my opinion, they just give it to you.
Voto:
We are talking about dimensions, not quantities, so even "countable" would be incorrect. Months and years are "countable" (1,2,3), time is not "countable." >> Well, no. In this statement, you change the subject, so you change the discussion. The topic was CONTRACT, understood as a WORK CONTRACT, and therefore a Document that MUST be legally recognized to be called such (work contract). Legally recognized, therefore, within absolutely Countable time limits, 1,2,3 years, otherwise you are not extending it but transforming it into different contracts. I follow your argument (I can't say I "approve" or "share" it because I don't enjoy discussing abstract things, that's just my taste), but you are generalizing from post to post, I am still on "Extension of Work Contract" and "Prolonging a list." If you change the example every time, it's a mess. Legal Time is countable.
Voto:
<< Why should we draw on Anglo-Saxon words of Latin origin when we are the people directly descended from the Latin language? >> I lost a bet years ago. If you look at some old dictionaries (we consulted the one from the university library of Law where Cossiga graduated) "accountant" is still explained with the Latin derivation provided by the Anglo-Saxons. I swear. If you don’t like it on principle, fine, let’s say "numerable"? I knew in my heart that the arrival of Josi_ (great master of Grammar from the site collecting Sumerian and Etruscan dictionaries) was imminent; he can't resist the various DI A DA IN CON SU PER TRA FRA.
Voto:
<< 'and instead' is not correct; 'and also' the same; 'perchè' is written 'perché'. >> Yes, it's incorrect. << But we're not nitpicking grammar, are we? >> Of course we are! We've been at it for an hour! << 'Contabile' is an adjective used improperly. >> No, it's just outdated, but it can be used as a literal translation of countable and uncountable, and in fact, I don't follow your argument because you're talking about Physical/Non-Physical, while I'm not. We're having two different discussions.