Mr_Iko

No, the cover is just this one! GREAT DOPEY!!! You know I care about you a lot, even though I have no idea who the hell you are (G maybe? Axelmoloco? Can you tell me in private?)

And then one undeniable fact to reflect on and draw a personal conclusion: with this my post, the page has been visited 620 (!) times and the number is set to grow. Therefore, it has sparked a debate. Hence, it's functional to the site (people visit the page because they are interested in the topic). So, it is not a damage. Then let me know what you think.

great comment josi_

continuing - Having established this necessary premise, our focus has shifted to the fact that, aware of the fundamental freedom, we must simply accept this "system" as it is, or change course. It’s as if the statutes and rules of a particular commercial company no longer suit me: once I liquidated my shares, I would say goodbye to everyone and leave. Or I would tolerate the rules I dislike to continue being a "member." However, the issue raised by djd has a certain significance. Given the current rules, one cannot accept his framework. If we were to change the rules, then we could discuss his proposal, in homage to the protection of the number of pages visited daily, which obviously reflects the prestige that the independence of thought of this site has proclaimed as its guide and banner.

continues - the issue of this discussion does not revolve around the goodness or otherwise of accidental rules (it might be useful to delve into them a bit more, perhaps in another setting) but rather on whether everyone follows them or not. It has been rightly pointed out with insight by Hal (aided by his studies in the field of law) that we do not know about the existence of certain rules related to censorship, pre-evaluation, or post-evaluation of reviews and that there are no uniform criteria for determining the goodness or otherwise of reviews. We must, on the contrary, pay attention to the fact that the existing rules are aligned with the broadest possible freedom. Example: no censorship for comments containing insults (even heavy ones) or those containing political statements (be careful, Big Brother is listening to us all...)

I would say that Federico really sparked a great discussion. I'm happy to finally see Hal openly taking a stand and fighting to defend his position (Hal, you know what I'm referring to, right? :o). I reiterate (even though it might be unnecessary now) what I consider to be right, without wanting to harm or offend anyone and without intending to "directly" teach anything to anyone: it is simply a matter of interpreting the rules that underpin a system. I will try to be concise without compromising the necessary thoroughness of the discussion. Any system or universe or society requires rules to support coexistence. These rules are the rules of nature (the physical, chemical, or mathematical ones, etc.) and accidental rules, which we put in place to facilitate our "common living."

How much I care about you Dopey... :o)

No one has the right to drive anyone away. No one should do it. I criticized the review of Cremonini's album because I found it useless. In reality, I was incredibly wrong and I changed my attitude about it. If the common philosophy is one of open indiscriminate acceptance of everything and everyone, without censorship, then so be it, as long as it is always respected. Each of us is perfectly capable of recognizing what is worthy (and praising it) from what is not worthy (and mocking it), without the risk of being misled by the mere presence of "bad" albums. Critical capacity is formed and acquired also through the beautiful-ugly comparison. If everything were beautiful, we wouldn't have the standard by which to define beauty, which is certainly a mental form that necessarily describes itself through the passage of the ugly (I believe it's called "representation by contrast," just as when defining what is permissible we must necessarily talk about what is forbidden). Twisted but true and just!

Can you tell me if you’re referring to "Time's up", "Vivid", or "Bisquit"? I’d like to understand which record you’re using to evaluate Living. If you’re talking about Funky, it’s probably "Vivid". It shouldn’t be "Stain" because it’s recent. It’s clear it’s not "Calleid0scope" since it was released two weeks ago.

The living colour are very religious. This means that they are clerics. This does not mean that they belong to a specific religion (whether monotheistic or pagan) that can be clearly inferred. They preach a word. It is up to us to listen to its richness.