odradek

Damn, even the exegesis of Squallor, you really didn't hold back. Last night I listened to "O tiempo se ne va," the reflection "tragically true in its obscene harshness" and the "Saviano's good musical taste" (wow). Nothing more to add except: damn!

Instead, you hit the mark. You see that if you want... (this was a joke)

P.S. But at that price, do you find clumping sand (a mess) or even decent stuff? Because 35-40 kg for 15 euros seems like a good price to me...

Totò, Peppino, and the '80s: the best comment I've read in recent months. - Morgan: not even if he pays me will I grant him an audience.

But that’s perfectly fine, Charley: you must have noticed the eagerness for sharp and "genius" (?) analysis in a lot of film "reviews." A piece like yours, which refers to the subject rather than using it as an excuse to flaunt the ego of the writer, is an oasis amidst so much noise.

Well, Flins, try to be more intuitive, reactive, insightful, come on. I can't explain everything to you: after all, you were laughing out loud thinking it was a typo. I wrote it on purpose to mess around and provoke even a sympathetic smile (not big laughs). Disappointed that you didn't pick up on it, indeed. - And then my post was also in response to Punisher's post, which was asking for explanations, thinking that Trell intended to hint at his own matters (not true, I believe: it was obviously an image among others referring to his devotion to the McLusky). I mean, we can't always be didactic even in comments. A little lightness and healthy silliness...

@ Flinstone: I wasn't upset, darling. I was just a bit disappointed...

But it's none of their business, what does it matter to me how they perceive it? What are we, support teachers? And then: I didn't say I'm the one who catches smiles, Flinstone: I said that THEY made me smile. It seems to me that there’s nothing wrong with being definitive, acidic, sarcastic, if one wants to be. Expecting appropriate reactions. Who cares about the tone? The issue is different and I believe I have already expressed it quite clearly, but perhaps it's worth repeating: "the clash that shifts the focus from opinions to people." This is intolerable for me. As for the rest, any attitude, even "rude" or "unpleasant," is more than acceptable (as long as it doesn't turn into insults or brawls). Including the politically incorrect, which is definitely less bothersome than the correct, for me. If there’s even a hint of irony or intelligence driving things, even better, but we can't expect that. Alright, it’s becoming too long and convoluted, I’ll close and say goodbye.

Flinstone, it made me smile. As if in a conversation in a tavern (exactly), someone—a new patron, let’s say—would enter and let himself get carried away by his own words, speaking with imaginative and poetic eloquence. The guy at the counter, turning to him, interrupts the flow of words, dismantling it with a blunt "but just stop it." That’s the scene I envision. And it makes me smile. Nothing to do with what I saw later: another person arrives, takes advantage of the situation, and in aggressive tones aims directly at the person who wrote the comment, also bringing in elements that have nothing to do with it, dragging in the file, etc. The two things are diametrically opposed. It doesn’t seem to take a great effort to grasp the difference: if that’s not the case, I suggest you make that effort. What weights and measures: there is only one measure, one that separates a conversation, even a heated one, where a "but just stop it" fits perfectly, from a clash that shifts the focus from opinions to people. - To the anonymous one, hiding behind "someone who was passing by," I respond by saying that on multiple occasions, I have told CAZ what I thought without hiding behind anonymity and without beating around the bush. Why does he choose to be a nameless fool?

Love, it wasn't a typo. Now that you know, it amuses you less, I bet...