puntiniCAZpuntini

"I really appreciate these Fugazi even though I don't know them, but we know for 99% it's not like that." Come on! More pearls of Italian, more pearls of "reasoning"! Send us a thousand, go with the subjunctive at the beginning of the sentence with the present in the middle and the past participle at the end, go on, let us dream that you're the best!

"I'm not interested in music; I'm interested in artists who, in addition to music, must also have such a captivating stage presence that it stays etched in the mind." Aside from the "I'm interested in that they must have," which is a mistake from elementary school, this concept is one of the most idiotic I've ever heard or read in my life. It's like measuring an athlete's skill by the women he sleeps with; it's like assessing the professionalism of an accountant by the jokes he tells. How can one proudly say that a musician is not evaluated based on their music, but on their stage presence? You're a human case worthy of a world Hit Parade; please: I want a daily thought from you, all as hilarious as this one.

Everything is very nice, but the review isn't mine. I haven't even heard it, and I don't think I ever will of my own accord.

I looked just now, but there's no trace of your message. Anyway, go to where it says Chupacabra, that’s the booking agency. There aren’t many updates because, being a "no-profit" agency that only looks for dates to open for more established bands, they can't afford to promote too much. But still, these are confirmed dates, zero scams from Colour Haze, especially since they brought the Italians to Germany two weeks ago, and now they have to return the favor.

Very good, but I didn't want to get into this discussion at all. I just wanted to tell you "you used the wrong example," and then "you picked the wrong person to include in the Voi." That's all, really.

<< Sorry, but do these two sentences seem contradictory to you? >> Yes, if you read what follows, namely << So I wasn't saying as you reported to make a distinction between publishing and censorship >>. Because yes, you were saying that. Maybe I misunderstood, but you were saying it.

<< what do you say? is it difficult? >> Ah, you want my opinion. I would have deleted about 85% of the reviews on this site from a musical standpoint. 85% of what comes through here is musically crap. But, from a pure entertainment perspective, I’m fine with it that way.

"You enjoy telling others 'they don't give a damn about you'." No, that was just the final remark. The post was centered around: wrong example. You keep shifting the focus of the discussion, and that's not getting us anywhere. And what a stroke of luck that you want to have a discussion.

"If the right side must be kept alive, it should be given some dignity." First, you wrote: "So if the right column has to be like this, it's better to suppress it." And don't tell me that I need to catch ironic nuances; if that were the case, you would have included emoticons. "You see, you don’t understand that a small change like the one that happened with the division between reviews could only do good." I didn't say I didn't understand; I only told you "you used the wrong example" at first, and "you addressed me in the wrong way" later. "Then if the supreme lord of Debaser doesn't give a damn about me, I certainly don't feel like a failure." I didn't say you should feel like a failure; I just told you: he doesn’t care about you. I didn't add anything else. "But in the meantime, I express my opinion, which is far from being meaningless." It's not the opinion, it's the example. There's a difference; read carefully. "And then since you have nothing to do with the creators of the site and editors, why do you respond?" I responded because you were talking to me, mistakenly placing me where I am neither, have been, nor want to be. So I had to respond, and no one else, in the second case. In the first case, I pointed out the nonsense of your example because I wanted to. And it was nonsense, the example. Or wrong. Or "it didn't matter at all." Not the opinion; I didn't even question the opinion.

Anyone who tries to be a know-it-all fails; it's impossible to succeed. Scaruffi attempts, but time and again he fails, which is normal.