puntiniCAZpuntini

DeRank : 14,44 • DeAge™ : 8163 days

  • Contact
  • Here since 21 october 2003
Voto:
Look, there's a friend of mine who says this: "rock still exists, but it has stopped being born, so it's dead." Do you like this better? Or should we change the adjectives?
Voto:
No, no, you’re not there yet. First of all, I never said he died on December 31, 1979. And secondly, if something "renews itself in countless forms," the original no longer exists, so one could say it’s "dead." When a caterpillar becomes a butterfly, the caterpillar ends and the butterfly is born. Then yes, you can call them both "caterpillar," or you can call them both "butterfly," but they are two different things. I call one a caterpillar and the other a Butterfly. Therefore, Lou Reed is a caterpillar (a magnificent caterpillar), and Acid Mothers Temple is a butterfly. If you still want to argue about what I call it and what you call it, or if you want to keep writing things I’ve never said like this fabulous date of death of yours: get yourself some help.
Voto:
What you wrote I understood, BUT it's A DIFFERENT STORY. And I repeat, fine, call it whatever the hell you want. But it was, it is, it will remain: a different story.
Voto:
Again? Have you agreed on that nonsense you call it, should I rewrite it for you? Here, always ready <<< It’s very clear that 60s/70s rock has said it all. Thanksalot. >>> So?
Voto:
Thank you Josi_, you bring me comfort.
Voto:
Yes Mike, I believe psychedelia is still very much alive and kicking. Oneida is a perfect example. Also check out Acid Mothers Temple or 35007.
Voto:
But I can also use it as a coaster with the name rock, the important thing is to understand each other. If instead of discussing a concept you argue about the fact that the name "concept" doesn't please you but you prefer "little thought," I don't know what to tell you. For me, you can call it Gianfranco too. <<< It’s crystal clear that Gianfranco said it all. Grazialcaz. >>> Okay, I'm fine with that.
Voto:
Darling, you also wrote that """bullshit""", look: <<< It's crystal clear that rock from the 60s/70s has said it all. Grazialcaz. >>> You wrote that, didn't you? You're clinging to the definition of a name. You've already told me you share the concept, so for me, the discussion is long over. But not for you; you’re hung up on the names I've been repeating to you for 90 posts: call them whatever you want, the concept remains the same, and it’s nothing extraordinary, just the discovery of fire that I used to talk about this album. An album you haven't even listened to, and you keep talking to me about names and names, but who cares about the names, bro.
Voto:
And likewise the grandchildren, because grandchildren are not just grandchildren, but are evolutions of your son. And since it’s normal for things to evolve, it’s equally normal to call them by the same name since in the end they are always the same thing. So no more son & grandson, but all son. And when you have to remember the birthdays, it will be a tough time.
Voto:
Following your "in summary" logic, I should think this about you: when you have to decide on a name for your son, do you think you'll manage it in time for his wedding? And if you have three, what will you do? Maybe if they're all boys, will you just call them all "son"? Or will you number them chronologically, son 1-2-3? Because since a son is always a son, and it’s not like if one is born later he’s different, but he’s always a son, you always have to call him son. Then who cares if nobody understands a damn thing at home, the important thing is that the son is called son, and the cousin is cousin. How’s that for a summary, is it alright?