odradek

This was a true stroke of genius. On the other hand, that you are a genius seemed obvious to many. And then, what else was left for you to do?

I saw what you thought it was a good idea to do on JoP's page dedicated to Mozart and Celine. Then I read yours. So I vote, respecting the proportion between the quality of the text and the rating: if that one deserves a 4, yours barely reaches a 1. But since I’ve always been a soft heart, I’ll double the score. Seems fair to me, don’t you think? This is the last one I visit, by the way, one of the few of yours not dedicated to the same authors. It seems sufficient to invite you to reread that page, assuming you have done so. And to encourage you to write things more worthy of it, since after 64 users had given it the maximum score, you thought it wise to stand out, clearly not fully satisfied with the quality of the text. I also do this because it seemed important that that page be the most appreciated and visible, distanced from all the others, avoiding the risk, however remote, of being reached by some trivial assignment.

I saw what you thought was a good idea to do on JoP's page dedicated to Mozart and Celine. Then I read yours. So I vote, respecting the proportion between the quality of the text and the rating: if that one is a 4, yours doesn’t exceed a 1. But since I've always been a soft-hearted person, I'll double the score. Of course, the first time I applied a personal and benevolent metric, now I'm applying yours. It seems fair, don't you think?

I saw what you thought was a good idea to do on the JoP page dedicated to Mozart and Celine. Then I read yours. So I’m voting, respecting the ratio between text quality and rating: if that one is a 4, yours doesn’t exceed a 1. And in this case, I don’t even feel like being generous by doubling out of kindness. It seems fair to me, don’t you think?

I saw what you thought was a good idea to do on the JoP page dedicated to Mozart and Celine. Then I read yours. So, I’m voting, respecting the proportion between the quality of the text and the rating: if that one deserves a 4, yours doesn’t exceed a 1. But since I’ve always been a soft heart, I’ll double the score. Seems fair, don’t you think?

I saw what you thought was a good idea to do on the JoP page dedicated to Mozart and Celine. Then I read yours. So, I’m voting, respecting the proportion between the quality of the text and the rating: if that one deserves a 4, yours doesn’t exceed a 1. But since I’ve always been a soft heart, I’ll double the score. Seems fair, don’t you think?

Certo! Inviami pure il testo e procederò con la traduzione.

Well, Socrates, he's definitely dead. I'm sure that the same nicknames of the 3/4ttrists (sad ones) from recent times are the same as the 5s during his time, on the same days. And that appearances can be deceiving, but only if you're not paying attention. Then again, even if I were wrong, what's the harm? After all, what's a few 5s gonna do? But I'm not wrong. It's possible they're a little gang, that much is true. Unfortunately, we can only "push" one of them, but what's important is to send a signal, some encouragement :))

Look, Socrates, I would turn these words into a concrete commitment: let's send it to the top (or almost, 'cause up there are Mozart and Celine and it will never reach them). Go to the homepage and give your 5 (among a thousand?) to the review of the young rebel. We're already well on our way...

- I forgot about the Mule. Damn, what a sieve of neurons I have left. It's true, you always write beautiful pages.