odradek

Grayish, poor thing...

Yes, beautiful, I understood the concept. Once it was enough. It will mean many things, like everything else. If you haven't already decided for me, as before, of course. It will mean that, perhaps, in this context, citing O.W., if no one had done it by this point, was out of place. That sometimes, in certain situations, the conditions suggest bringing certain things, certain discussions, elsewhere, to those who may be interested. And with others who have at least had the curiosity to inform themselves... Maybe an attitude that is not shareable? Perhaps, but it has nothing to do with the intentions you attribute to me. As your stubbornness in not admitting that your exit depended on a hasty reading of a presumed intention, on my part, to assert things that I didn’t actually say, will mean something. Indeed, what will it mean? And why do I not have the pleasure of addressing you, beautiful, by name, in black like everyone else? Responding to what is being said, errors or lapses in style included? Indeed, what will it mean? I confess that this is not a doubt that will torment me. Best regards.

I confess absolute ignorance and thank you for the quality of the report.
It scares me a little...

But nice and anonymous gray, it’s probably because they are too complicated that those questions shouldn’t be asked of me. It’s probably because I wouldn’t create any connections whatsoever between this CD and such matters, that I didn’t even vote on the review, instead asking for an opinion on the music. And it’s likely that if my already exhausted capacity for dialogue extends to responding to people who take advantage of any space to express trivialities in the face of complex situations and insult those who think differently, perhaps I am being too kind to you. Time has value; I too often forget it. What I think about those complicated questions is probably not something to be said here. Certainly not to you. Regards.

Well, when it comes to a polemical spirit, you don't hold back, El Guevo. A true story, one of the most Lynchian of all time, is truly a nice attempt; it even leaves an impact. Just like claiming that since it’s a film only available on VHS, it doesn’t exist. When read like this, they even sound like serious and reliable statements. However, I was trying to express opinions, not these little continuous traps, all unfair, in defense of something that only concerns you. Conversation, I believe, is something else. Regards.

Grigiolino, I always speak for myself. Read everything and read it well. It was for trellheim, who mentioned above "..I don't like not seeing the name of Orson Welles on this page." In my post, it says "...it's funny that no one, APPARENTLY, knows..." And APPARENTLY was clearly referring to the absence, among the posts, of references to O.W. I do not have the habit of presuming anything about others' ignorance, as I already have to tame my own. Clear? OK?

Massimof: self-evident, you might say. And yet...
trellheim: what a relief "not to read the name of Orson Welles on this page."
At least him, for heaven's sake. Let's spare him.
Yes, it's funny that no one seems to know his, war of the worlds. But that must mean something, right?

No, it's the first time. And it's beautiful. But with the accent, I save a hit on the keyboard, and since I'm slow and a bit lazy...
Thank you, anyway, from the heart.

Zigghio, great review. Nice when you say "..for me who always exaggerates..." But if I have #1 Record and Radio City I missed the best, then? Those aren't really bad at all...

Strange, I didn't notice it in the Beghelli catalog. And to think it could be quite useful....
I understand the invitation, though, to wait for the "real" review and I'm on the same page as josi. C U later