puntiniCAZpuntini

<< OK, so now we are here... >> No, no, we are not here at all. Now answer the questions, Forrest.

Alright, let's try another tactic. Since if someone explains it to you in detail you don't understand, let's try to stimulate you with a free theme. Let's start: << it seems to me that you brought up A Clockwork Orange, >> Yes, I brought it up as a literary example, so what? What can be deduced from that? << I contradicted you that even in that case a SUBJECT (do you know the word?) can be repeated infinitely and still be original... >> CONTRADICTED? How can you contradict me on an opinion? Explain to me what you think contradicting means. << this is just your diabolical interpretation >> No, these are called meanings of words in the Italian language, this unknown. My next mission will be to find Enrico Preziosi's phone number to pitch you to him. If I can sell you as a master to produce little figurines, I could become a billionaire. From today, you will be my Forrest.

It's the one of him with the balloon hair, the web is full of it. Since we are, look for photos of Linnèa, the guitarist of Sonic Ritual. But be careful, it might make you want to buy all their records.

Well, she's certainly not Alicia Keys...

MAMMA MIA! I've never seen this before -> <- Mike Buongiorno Vs Maradona Vs Alexander De Large.

As a young man, he wasn't that terrible; he had the face of a serial killer with glasses, but he was bearable to look at. From the mid-70s onward, he started his transformation into an alien, poor thing. I just saw her, and she's quite a mess, and considering that if you look like a mess in promotional photos with Photoshop and makeup artists... the morning after a binge, you could be mistaken for the shock absorber of a Scania or any object one might have in mind, but not a woman.

I was told she was Phil Specter's daughter, but apparently she has the kappa. Anyway, I wouldn't have heard her anyway :)

You are truly a goat at maximum levels, things I've rarely seen. When someone tells you they agree and you're both saying the same thing, you change the subject and start having conversations with yourself, then you even ask others who brought up the topic. You are really a hoot. Now let me explain everything to you again; it will take a bit, but it's worth it to read your latest response with another subject change. So, I told you I was talking (to myself too, apparently based on your responses) about the originality of this - this, only this, Jarmush, only him - cinematic idea, and that if one wanted - wanted, not necessarily right now, but just wanting to - they could carry the discussion - they could, not "it was being carried", but only could - to literary, pictorial, or musical cases as well. I didn't specify any case equal to this one; it takes too long to find one. But you found the case, making a nice speech all by yourself; here it is, read it again: """how many still lifes (to give one of the many subjects that repeat in painting) exist? If you don't know, I'll tell you: millions, good, so the only original was the first, hence Caravaggio's (just to randomly name one) are worth nothing,""" You found the case, always changing the subject, and you even judged it all by yourself. I didn't even take the topic; I just quoted your phrase to bring you back to the main discussion because you lose your way. Subsequently, you replied to me about a Caravaggio quote that you told yourself all on your own. Then you ask me << who ever talked about beauty? >> You did, since you wrote ""Caravaggio (just to name one randomly) are worth nothing,"". Your "are worth nothing" is an evaluation comparable to beautiful or ugly, and it's all yours. Reread my posts; I never wrote Caravaggio myself; I only quoted you changing the topic while also lying about the records you own. << I don't know English that well and I haven't translated Wu's texts >> Does it take knowing English well to hear gunshots during a song or recognize the term Guns? By 1999 they must have made at least 20 tracks with samples of gunfire from pistols and rifles, not to mention an entire Wu satellite called Killarmy, which talks solely about rifles and pistols, with videos full of rifles and pistols. I said "the Wu-Tang Clan," meaning the entire clan and all their albums up to the release of this film. But you, as usual, made up your speech all by yourself limiting it to "Enter The Wu-Tang." Now go ahead and make another speech to yourself: I’m waiting confidently. Reread yourself.

<< So those of Caravaggio (just to name one randomly) are worth nothing, >> Either you're really stupid, or you just don't read. I've written and specified ten times that you can have nothing original, you might not even know what it means to be original, and yet produce stunning things. I read books that are all the same and listen to records that are all the same, and I'm very happy about it. Your little head can't seem to dissociate one adjective from another; I'm not saying that Original is necessarily Beautiful, just as I'm not saying the opposite. I'm discussing, specifying it for three days now, only the originality of the work and not its value. And I keep going for three days because you’re hilarious. << 36 chambers... I own it too, I know exactly how they are dressed on the cover and everything else >> But if you told me before that there are no guns in Wu... come on... why do you have to tell lies? You just end up embarrassing yourself by looking at the covers online. But keep going: send more. Now go watch all the videos on YouTube so then you can talk to me about the videos and exchange opinions on the flow of the Chef and the metric of the Genius, in the parking lot under your house on the Hummer with 26" rims, yo bro', light 'em up. But knock it off.

Ah, just to clarify, since you’re obviously too stupid to figure it out on your own << couldn't understand shit about cinema >> We're not talking about cinema, but about whether an idea is original or not; whether it’s cinema, painting, literature, or music doesn’t change the topic. I couldn't care less about cinema, and I watched this film ten years ago, losing interest during the first half.