odradek

Now I'm going to try to listen to it, the record of these guys. Thanks to someone you love and whom I thank, without any preliminaries (what a drag, sometimes, the prelims) :)

What preliminaries? They were just a few verbal caresses. And besides, I'm not ambidextrous: I like young men, it's true, but I prefer lurking among the foliage. You declare love, but it seems a bit platonic: ambidexterity seemed to me to be something else (And I really would like to get to know this TheRealRamona better: I know I'm not her favorite, but I don't care. I'm curious, she has quite a temper...)

Well, then I forgot the poor in spirit, the lacking in oratory, the poor commentator... In short, in a few lines, a three-layered omelette.

I imagined it. But what kind of nerve do you have, attempting such a response? Who decided that if I don’t appreciate this Morgan, I don’t love “original and intelligent things”? And what does Italian production have to do with it, in general? Where did you come up with this brilliant hypothesis? And then what the hell are you hiding BEHIND A FINGER? Was it maybe me who brought up foresight and prejudices referring to YOUR person? And was that being ON POINT? Can you at least use one non-contradictory word or are you specialized in boomerangs? Since it was YOU who put them on the table, I tried to understand where to trace these elements in your way of presenting yourself as a user. And it was pertinent to what you were saying. So don’t try to flip this around, since you asked for it. But I’m not surprised: it’s evident from the content and tone of your post that it’s yours. I didn’t even think for a moment that you lent your nickname and password to someone who comments this way in your stead: IT’S IN YOUR STYLE!

We weren't flirting, Flinstone isn't my type (no offense, in case you're sensitive) - But are you double-sided too?

Oh, just a few lines, two links, and the good news of an unexpected return. It seems you’ve also beaten your record for conciseness. Thanks for the tip, Festwca. I have the others, I’ll take this one.

In short, Lesto BANG: LESS prejudice, always... FIRST think THEN post!

Nick, do you really think that? I recently came back and I have to say that it’s very rare for me to come across any tasty page. Maybe it’s because the ones I liked the most were made by users who have disappeared, or maybe since these movies came out, it seems that everyone feels the need to show off improbable genius, or perhaps it’s that enjoyable exchanges of banter in the comments are increasingly rare... The saying "it was better when it was worse" really doesn't apply here, it seems to me. The opposite is true: an open organism like this pays the price of its endurance and increased visibility precisely with the influx of users and the overflow of all the typical dynamics of "public square" behaviors and tastes. I believe that claiming that anyone who points out the situation of "devolution" is merely a nostalgic old-timer is a convenient escape that avoids addressing the issue; then again, if I’m still here, it’s evident I’m also laiko it. - The controversy of this review revolves around the ways of interacting. As old as the world, then. Or like DeB.

And what makes you think, dear and far-sighted dispenser of unsolicited advice, that I haven’t listened? If your foresight is what has characterized your hemorrhagic production of pages and posts, under myriad nicknames, over these years, I believe I can easily do without it. As for prejudices, again: is it only allowed for you to express negative opinions, perhaps believing yourself to be witty, perhaps insisting for dozens of "reviews" with the same formula, perhaps "panning" albums or musicians who, in most cases, have already been condemned by their own output, or do you acknowledge some right to others as well? Why should it be a matter of prejudices and not judgments? I've listened to this gentleman enough, and for a long time, to say that even if he pays me, I won’t listen to him again. Or must I remain "enchanted" by force?

Uxo, no. We don’t know who we are dealing with. That’s the point. And that’s why I try not to identify the opinions expressed with their incorporeal nick or with the hypothetical individual behind it. I don’t engage in that dynamic; I don’t accept that level. We know that the space is open to everyone and that everyone finds their way of moving: when this way becomes offensive, reacting by entering into conflict, perhaps with the same methods, only fuels a predictable evolution that can only produce pitiful results. I speak from long direct experience. But what I had to say on the subject was the subject of an old editorial. It's called "there were a lot of things in the world," I believe, and you can find it by clicking on "other stories," under the editorial on the homepage. I think I still feel that way, even though the average quality of reviews and comments on DeB has significantly declined since then. In my opinion, of course.