Alexander77

post 163...oh yes, you are completely right about that...you made me smile...Ahahaha! :D

Ahahaha...look, I was just thinking about Alessio, Panic, and Bartolino...damn, can you read my mind?! Wrong: you should have answered "I don't give a damn about being considered an idiot on the internet"...anyway, I wrote "bruttezza" just to make you understand, I know it's not synonymous with quality, but accept it (since it's not just me saying it but practically all dictionaries), it has a neutral value, which one can deduce from the sentence or the context..."not in the sentence you provided": exactly, this is what Nick rightly claims, and it's the only thing we can discuss...I’m telling you that I meant to attribute a negative value (and from the context, it’s clear; I spoke poorly of this album in every possible way, both in the review and in the comments...but you can choose not to believe me), you are free to think otherwise...in the end, we’re still back at square one...

Ah, don't crack up too much... you are notoriously the fool of the site, and 99% of your time you spend writing nonsense out of context...

Too bad for you... it shows that you had time to waste...

Look, I’m not correcting myself at all; I’ve been repeating the same thing for countless posts. But then again, I say, what the hell do you care about rereading such nonsense when I wouldn’t even do it myself... no, no, come on, what do I care about being right, here on debaser?! Besides, I couldn’t care less about the impression I’m making, and I’ve already said that; I care less than zero about virtual credibility. The fact remains that you didn’t understand. Period. Quality can have a negative value; call it ugliness if you prefer, and you’ll see you’ll grasp the proportion... then if you want to come and contest what I meant by quality, it’s exactly what Nick did, who is the only one who understood... that’s it, and best regards...

Nes, don’t take offense but as usual you didn’t understand a damn thing (even though this time I’m convinced you didn’t understand simply because you didn’t read the comments)! What you didn’t get is that I meant ugliness, find the appropriate noun yourself; in any case, poor quality, exactly the opposite of what you were saying... now, the ironic proportion (and therefore without any real mathematical value) meant to say “your stupidity is directly proportional to the (poor) quality of this record.” As I’ve already mentioned maybe a couple of times, you can argue that I meant poor quality (and that’s exactly what Nick did, rightly from his point of view) or quality in its positive sense... if you reread the reply, you’ll understand what I mean... in practice, it’s just a matter of believing or not that I meant negative qualities... are we on the same page?! Until next time...

I agree, schiz! And also the rece....

Well, but who decides that context isn't enough? The specification isn't in the sentence, and that's why I wrote that the rendering of the concept has become unnecessarily convoluted. But again, if you go check the definition above (which we're using as a parameter), you'll notice that in the first one there's no indication of the necessity for a specification (which, instead, is required in point b)... so the sentence should be considered wrong only if quality is attributed a positive value... something I haven't done (and here comes into play good faith or bad faith...).

Christ, what ignorance: since when can stupidity have a positive value? Quality, on the other hand, is neutral (as demonstrated by the definition above), and can have both positive and negative value. If we talk about direct proportionality, and you come out with the nonsense "if quality = zero then stupidity = zero", after I've repeated to you for dozens of posts "direct proportionality between increasing negative values, that is tending towards negative infinity", then that means you are impaired.
I use the Cartesian plane because you can’t grasp it and because it is closely related to the principles of proportionality. If you can't grasp it, fine... Oh, you make me smile, you’ve annoyed federock, what’s the problem... everyone here says their piece... just like cappio does.
@cappio: hi beautiful... but imagine, for what?!? You say "the 'quality' referred to has a positive connotation; it lacks the specification required." I reply, if you want to believe me, that instead it has a negative connotation, which for me is evident from everything, comments and receptions, EVEN THOUGH THERE IS NO SPECIFICATION IN THE SENTENCE. Rightly, you might say that I am acting in bad faith (just like nick does, and he has his reasons, which the slow-witted one does not have)... but the gist is this, you understood it, so did nick, the little teacher didn’t understand a damn thing, and she dares to give lessons. Now, if you reread this ridiculous conversation, you will notice that what I wrote here has been repeated for I don’t know how many posts... I took it for granted that that quality had a negative connotation (just read how I talk about the record) and I admit freely that I expressed a concept in an unnecessarily convoluted way, but the substance doesn’t change...

Sure, no problem. So: I didn’t bring up the vocabulary; it was someone smarter than you who figured out where the error might have been, only to find out that there was no error, rather just a lack of precision... Second, I didn’t bring up Cartesian, but you (indirectly) supporting this nonsense, "if quality = zero then imbecility = zero. If imbecility = zero, then the phrase means that Nick is not an imbecile," after I’ve written God knows how many times "direct proportionality between increasing negative values, that is, tending towards minus infinity," where zero isn’t even contemplated... and to help you understand, I told you to study the Cartesian plane... but no, you keep insisting. I'm not making anything more confusing; as you can see, I’m keeping up with your arguments, except that Nick’s could have made sense (my presumed bad faith), while yours doesn’t make any sense at all. It’s that true... I don’t know how many times I’ve disproved the argument I mentioned above, at this point, I think you don’t know the relationship between the Cartesian plane and proportionality (direct or inverse)... instead of wasting your time with me and making a fool of yourself, go back to studying, donkey!