Mr_Iko

Sometimes even the most unpredictable things happen... :o)

Original texts? Never read one of Frank Zappa's texts?

ENOUGH WITH THIS DAMN TITLE "CANTATESSA". What the hell!

And the advertisement for the pizzeria Katamarano rock? Rustic, I'd say... EVERYONE TO THE CORAL!!!

It's just that the mono wrinkles me a bit...

It is!

What the hell, if a Consoli concert gets 5 stars, how many stars for a Bowie concert? Or dEUS? Or PJ HARVEY, for that matter? Five thousand? Come on!

No way!!! Carmen Consoli claims to be pj!!! And if I write "who does she think she is?" everyone jumps down my throat responding "who do you think you are?". Can you believe it? As if Grignani said "I'm the Italian David Bowie"... I’ll spit in his face! Let’s try to stay serious, come on…

Indeed, as you say, the crux of the matter is to evaluate whether the common interest of users in freedom of opinion is predominant (and thus worthy of protection) or succumbs to the common interest of the site's underlying philosophy of being a refuge for minds far from the commercial pacifism of the mainstream. It seems obvious to me. The problem is not easy to resolve, all things considered, because it is almost impossible to clearly distinguish freedom of information and thought from the independence of thought itself. I don't believe we can define with sharp clarity what belongs to the first set and what to the second. We are forced to choose for "conventions," meaning we must initially say: "this is freedom of thought, this is independence (alternativity) of thought," aware of the inevitable forced categorizations we will have to impose, rigidifying the abstract nature of thought into mathematical classifications. But so it is... Perhaps (and I say perhaps) independence of thought is a subcategory of the freedom of thought itself. Or perhaps it is the freedom of thought that derives from independence. You see how truly difficult it is?

Having caught the delightful irony in Tabba's post (great Tabba, all good at Torrazzi?), I move to Hal's comment, always rational and composed. In fact, we could also say that if the premise is one of fundamental freedom, we are already, in some way, discussing the validity of djd's statement. I reiterate that according to the rules (which you describe as customary, while I believe they are the positive rules set by the authors of the site, but this is perhaps an academic discussion since the interpretive rules are essentially the same, only that customary norms have a slightly lower "value" in the hierarchy of sources) that I've found among these pages, nothing prevents Federico from reviewing whatever he likes. But if the ultimate or primary aim of the site is to differentiate itself (independence is declared in the page header) in content and form from other review containers, which tend to align more closely with mainstream currents, then we must discuss the preventive filter mentioned by djd (who I believe is a founding member of the site). I think it's enough to "roll up" our sleeves and discuss it politely; I believe the truth often lies somewhere in the middle. You're great, Hal; it's a pleasure to tackle such topics with you.