Alexander77

Ahaha... yes, the page did go off the rails... anyway, this bullshit lasted way too long, for a recap of the previous episodes see posts 181-182... for some laughs, the rest...
Thank you for listening and see you tomorrow... bye stone!

What amuses me is seeing two fools (I’ve counted two and I'm not referring to Nick) cling to an ironic statement like ticks, trying to prove that the statement is wrong with no success, and ending up judging someone who, if they wanted to, is having four laughs at their expense... it's a bit like if I used all the writing mistakes of nes to label him as illiterate or impaired...

Now Cappio, you understood what I meant (regardless of whether I am right or wrong, regardless of whether I meant negative or positive qualities...WHO GIVES A FUCK)...Can you explain to me why that fool didn’t get it?! Go read post 166 or one of the latest ones...

"The only alternative would have been to specify the peculiar aspect in question": thanks a lot, now explain it to someone who really doesn’t get it, they even went so far as to claim the exact opposite of what you and Nick are saying... It’s true, I didn’t specify it, indeed the whole issue revolves around that, and nothing else... That’s why I previously wrote "you can dispute the fact that I actually meant negative qualities"... I simply referred to the definitions from Treccani that Nick provided, which gave a neutral connotation (qualità = caratteristica).

and again...Nooooooooo, I wrote what I wrote attributing a negative connotation to the term quality that can be inferred from 200 posts and the review...the fact that you commonly assign a positive connotation to the term quality doesn’t mean a thing, simply because even the dictionary gives it a neutral value in the absence of specifications (if you allow that there were specifications in a review like this and related posts)...

Amen, I couldn't care less, you contradicted yourself in three posts... I've been saying the same thing for 100 posts... I couldn't care less if you have the support of Tizio, Caio, and Pinco Pallino, I think you're a moron and Alessio, Bartolo, and Panico think the same... so what?! Ball's in your court... to me, you're just a joke, you're the one worried about proving your theses... "presence of obscene (or terrible, or poor) quality," according to you, in an ironic sentence, was I supposed to write this nonsense? I wrote quality referring (it seemed obvious to me, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt) to the negative (growing) quality of this record... and the comical thing is that you and the other idiot show up to write your thoughts when the only thing that could be discussed was the value attributed to quality (like Nick did...)?

Once I explain that by negative qualities I mean "ugliness" (I wouldn't know what other term to use), what is there to understand? I was the first to say that I expressed myself in a convoluted manner unnecessarily...

Ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh....you got it....but you see, I've repeated it about a thousand times, that's why I keep saying "you can argue about the fact that I attributed a negative connotation to qualities, but not on anything else)!!!"

Not only that, but you also misunderstood the relationship of proportionality... if you give quality a positive value, the relationship becomes: the record has low quality, the user is not very stupid (this is because it’s a direct proportionality)! Exactly the opposite! GOOD! WELL DONE! ENCORE! So what you say, "because if there had been a good dose of quality then the stupidity would have skyrocketed as well and you would have said what you wanted to say," is a load of crap, yet again! WELL DONE... what you say would only be true if I had considered the record a masterpiece... YOU'RE A REAL PHENOMENON...

"Goodness, do you realize that everyone who criticized that statement has attributed a negative value to quality? I mean, it was clear, and that's precisely the problem... because if there had been a good dose of quality, then even the stupidity would have spiked, and you would have said what you wanted to say." HERE'S WHAT NICK WROTE: "QUALITY, if lacking any specification, NORMALLY EXPRESSES POSITIVE MORAL AND INTELLECTUAL QUALITIES!" HERE'S WHAT CAPPIO WROTE: "the 'quality' referred to has a positive connotation; it lacks specification." In short, in the end, you managed to show that you didn't understand a damn thing and that you grasped exactly the opposite of what others are asserting. Shudder, well done, you never disappoint!