Mr_Iko

Charmingly vulgar but fundamentally correct is Sallu's comment. I give Sallu a 5.

Come on... elf... nothing personal but it is what it is... I don't care if you don't review anymore, your threats to leave leave me completely indifferent. I was happy there was someone else, besides me, reviewing albums by heavy axemen (I call them axemen, you call them guitar heroes). I was really interested in your review of Satriani, whom I know very well. It's clear that if you limit yourself to writing ten lines about an album that needs at least a thousand to be thoroughly described, someone will point it out to you, right? Don't get stubborn, we're a big family; you have no idea how many times I get furious when I'm mocked! It's part of the game, if you write you expose yourself, and if you expose yourself you have to be ready to take a few hits among the compliments. When you reread this review a year from now, you're going to hate it, and you'll understand why people gave you a hard time. Don't let some nonsense shake you. Stay strong. Your rightful reaction to criticism should be to write a review of Axis or electric ldl as if you were a Rolling Stone journalist... go for it. For now, sorry, but the rating is absolutely 1...

Yes, I KNOW what a flight of fancy is, I know who Pindar was, but you...?

Nice this last comment. After the hundred death messages I received by email.. this tickles me!

Flight of fancy? I mean jumping from one side of the conversation to the other without logic? Or did you use that word because you liked the sound of it? And besides, I doubt one can derive any benefit from discussions about "taste"...

An anonymous person is a scoundrel who doesn't want to take responsibility for what they communicate. The scoundrel feels relieved by the fact that they are not obliged to bear the responsibility for their words. Would a masked man be tolerated if he stood up to give a speech to the people or wanted to speak before an assembly? Or would it even be acceptable for someone to attack others and cover them with insults without showing their own face? Wouldn't they soon be kicked out with powerful blows?
(Schopenhauer - The Art of Insulting).
Hissed from the shadows, cowardly and miserable anonymous figures, and you lack the courage to show yourselves, out of fear of appearing as horrendous as your intellect clearly demonstrates.

Q.E.D. = Quod Erat Demonstrandum...

Of course it won't happen: by posting messages like >Beatles=TakeThat< and significantly lowering the level of the conversation, when will the right moment ever arise to dive deeper? You said it well when you introduced the viral infection of superficiality: it's easier, more convenient, and less demanding. A simple escape route for those who don't want to put in a little effort. Have a nice day!

writes eh, if it happens to you! :D. The anthology-phenomenological comments are almost more interesting than the review. Let’s go with the phenomenology of the Jamiro!

An anonymous person is a scoundrel who doesn’t want to take responsibility for what they communicate. The scoundrel feels relieved by the fact that they are not obliged to bear the consequences of their words. Would a masked man perhaps be tolerated if he were to give a speech to the people or wanted to speak before an assembly? Or would it even be acceptable for someone to attack others and shower them with insults without showing their face? Wouldn’t he soon be kicked out with powerful kicks?
(Schopenhauer - The Art of Insulting).
Hiss from the darkness, vile and pathetic anonymous ones, and you don’t have the courage to show yourselves, for fear of appearing as horrendous as your intellect proves to be. Go back to your provincial hole. With the disappearance of anonymity, 95% of the problems caused by all this knavery would vanish. Shame on you. I will copy and paste this message against every anonymous message directed at me.