Alexander77

Convinced you... I must say you looked like a fool, like a schoolteacher who wanted to give lessons in Italian and math, and you ended up making a complete mess... if you had just limited yourself to saying "you explained yourself poorly" or "I don't think you meant negative qualities," I could have understood you (which is what Nick did)... anyway, if it amuses you to waste your time, no problem...

Here, after post 134, I find myself saying that you haven't understood a damn thing... oh well...

I see that, perhaps, you've finally understood… in fact, now you're shifting the discussion back to the term quality, which I had attributed an obvious negative value to… and we return once again to the posts above, where I explained that I was unnecessarily twisted, but that the phrase, even as written, is correct, simply because by quality I meant negative qualities. Now, you are free to doubt this, but do you know how much I really give a damn?! Now, go play the teacher somewhere else.
P.S.: Descartes is definitely relevant; if you can’t grasp it, it's no one’s fault (just choose the right quadrant and everything will be clearer). Above all, don’t question the abilities or ineptitudes (as a writer, a mathematician, or whatever you wish) of someone you’re wasting time on the internet with… you’re coming off as quite pitiful and like a "candy seller"…

Do you know what's ridiculous? You came here to play the teacher and you're getting a lesson instead. The even funnier thing is that the one I (ironically) called an imbecile actually understood (or at least I think so), and indeed he accuses me (rightly from his point of view, since trusting is good, not trusting is better) of being nitpicky. You, on the other hand, keep going on about "quality = zero, so imbecility = zero," proving that you haven't understood a damn thing; in fact, I've probably written dozens of times above "direct proportionality between increasing negative values," meaning tending toward negative infinity... but no, you keep insisting on 0=0... the Cartesian plane is definitely relevant, you just can't grasp it... I am reading you, even though you've exhausted me; I thought you were sharper... "if in your opinion this record has no quality due to the transitive property, then nik has no 'imbecility'"... and again, it has increasing negative quality, it worsens with each listen; I've repeated this to you I don't know how many times... Oh, I didn't want to make you look like a fool, you got there all by yourself...

Alright Bartolino, don't worry... I've already been to the Deftones concert, it was full of girls (who would have gladly torn off their panties for Chino) and they all came out intact and happy... let's avoid the front rows at most... everything okay, right? When will that damn lung stabilize?! Since they were at it, they could have used some super glue!!!
@paola: again? Think what you want... after 30 posts, I no longer feel like repeating the same thing... if you still haven't understood, that's your problem... study the quadrants of the Cartesian plane, reread the definition of quality, accept the fact that I've given the term a negative connotation (very evident) and if you still can't grasp it, whatever...

Bartolinooooooo...hi handsome...Oh, you still haven't replied about the Deftones concert...yeah, I'm notoriously, especially in this case, picky! :D
Oi, I'm waiting for an email about the upcoming concerts or excuses to go spend a little money (which theoretically I shouldn't have...but that's a minor detail)!

Nick, I simply provided the definition from the Treccani dictionary that you had truncated... for the millionth time, you can accuse me of being unclear (and I repeat, I have no problem admitting it...) but the assumption (in its irony) was not wrong at all, so much so that the very definition you provided confirms it. The fact that by quality I meant negative qualities was evident from the discussion, from the review, from the comments... I know that generally quality is used in a positive sense, but in this case it seemed obvious to me that the meaning was negative (and in my mind it was like that... coincidentally, I later specified the meaning...). You can judge the form, but not the incorrectness... Oh, by the way, now you answer me: ""And in addition, they are arrogant and insult those who make correct and undeniable observations"... What would be the correct and undeniable observations?! This? "giving 1 to Santana is really ridiculous, regardless"... is this the correct and undeniable assertion? Or just the nonsense of a fanatic?!

I don't see why you should have anything against me, unless you want to consider the fact that we disagree on an opinion. Which opinion, by the way, is not: you can only argue about what I supposedly meant (that's why I spoke of bad faith), but not about the fact that the sentence, even so, as unnecessarily complicated as it may be, has meaning. And this is proven by the fact that Nick, coincidentally, referenced the definition that suited him in the previous posts. It’s true, I didn’t write “his stupidity is directly proportional to the (poor) quality of this album,” but as I’ve repeated to you for 200 posts, it’s exactly what I thought, and the sentence remains correct even without that poor word, simply because the specification is clear from 200 posts and from the review... I repeat, you can argue about bad faith, not about the correctness of the sentence; you can say it’s ugly, unnecessarily convoluted, that it could have been written a thousand times more straightforwardly (true, I threw it out there for irony and without reflecting on it), but not about its correctness... As for the rest, I’ve told you, I care less than zero, especially about the judgments you expressed (not because they were expressed by you, simply because they were expressed in a context where 90% of the time people talk nonsense and 10% about music)...

I understand what you're trying to say, but it's not like that! "You swapped, due to the eagerness in writing, the words stupidity and intelligence": nooooooo, due to the eagerness in writing I complicated a concept that could have been much clearer, as you indicated above, but the point remains the same. The sentence makes complete sense and is perfectly understandable even written like this; it's simply that both you and the other person are giving the wrong meaning to the word quality! Oh, I'm using the same arguments as your little friend above. You might think I'm being dishonest, you might think I'm just engaging in rhetoric, but the fact remains that the sentence is coherent and correct, implicitly acknowledging the abysmal quality of the disc in question. And anyway, I repeat, I'm not interested in convincing you, simply because I couldn't care less about "internet credibility"... I leave that to others... Oh, have you listened to the album... because you see, in my opinion, if you do listen to it, you'll realize that the word quality can only have one value in front of this disc.

Paola, come on, I'm having a blast... really, honestly... anyway... of course, I don't have the Sabatini Coletti at home, it's just the online dictionary used by Corriere della Sera... but it's up to you if you think it's unreliable... I didn't feel like checking the Zingarelli or the Devoto Oli, I just consulted the Treccani dictionary like good old Nick did and reported the definition he had carefully cut out... I add: in my head it was obvious that that quality was meant as ugliness (?!), disgustingness (sounds terrible, to be honest even ugliness)... it simply seemed to me the most trivial thing in the world, so much so that in '97 I used the term "schifo"... but disgustingness sounded awful...