Bartleboom

DeRank ™: 35,89
DeAge™ : 7613 days • Here since 9 august 2005
Love Contact
Octogen 2fiveonine
Octogen 2fiveonine
30 jan 10
Voto:
Damn, what the hell! And thank goodness you edited it: to manage to read it, I had to lick the screen... enough, I'm upset: I'm not reading it. Maybe I'll swing by for the double one. But first, I’m going to reread the part about pizza from the first press conference with Zaccheroni. (bbuuahahahahahahahaha!!!!)
Scanner Sound for Spaces
Scanner Sound for Spaces
30 jan 10
Voto:
Look, I didn’t understand much of the references to other artists, nor the "concept" behind the album. But the review is very well written, the proposal seems super cool, despite the hassle, you ended up with just one comment and the album cover is a picture of me from when I was in elementary school. So: 5 for life!
The Lindbergh Baby Hoodwinked
The Lindbergh Baby Hoodwinked
30 jan 10
Voto:
"It's hard to tell if the sparse 29 minutes of the album are too few or too many." A sharp critique! :) Well done, memento.
Iron Curtain Desertion 1982 - 1988
Iron Curtain Desertion 1982 - 1988
30 jan 10
Voto:
Beautiful review, sincere, but also objective. Well done.
Barclays Premier League Portsmouth vs West Ham United
Barclays Premier League Portsmouth vs West Ham United
30 jan 10
Voto:
No, wait a moment. This way I understand even less. First you talked about a boutade regarding the review. Now you talk about a boutade also in reference to the statistics?!? And by the way: WE would be making a "matter of state"?! You sent the review on Dylan Dog in December 2008. It was discarded (and we didn’t exactly "take refuge in silence": it’s just that we are - I am - too lazy! Probably I and Sfascia passed the email back and forth for a week, until you wrote to us! Come on, let’s avoid being melodramatic...). You mentioned it in several comments. You brought it up multiple times in chat. You sent it again in August 2009. It was again discarded for the same reasons. You highlighted this again in some comments. Now, after a year has passed, you interrupt your voluntary exile and send another review with the precise intent of highlighting the inconsistency of the editors' choices... Frankly, it seems to me that it is you who has made it a "matter of state." Regarding the statistics issue, I repeat, I haven’t understood: is it a serious matter that we should reflect on, a piece of advice, a stimulus for the audience, or is it a boutade?! Should I take it seriously and act accordingly (?!?), or should I joke about it, because otherwise I'll make it a matter of state?! That said: I find sports reviews as enjoyable as blocks of basalt with amber veins. In fact, all TV reviews make me feel like I'm wading through flocks of shit-filled balls made of stones. In fact, I was one of the fiercest detractors of that section at the beginning (if it were up to me, Debasio would be 50% music, 25% books, 25% cinema AND THAT'S IT). However, if - quite some time ago - the higher-ups decided to open the site to “TV reviews,” well, then I’ll adapt and hope that the users are smart enough not to give space to the crap. A bit like with HP: I don’t like it. I’ve said this to those in charge. I haven’t been accommodated. I hold my nose and continue visiting the only site on the internet that I’m truly fond of. That’s all.
Barclays Premier League Portsmouth vs West Ham United
Barclays Premier League Portsmouth vs West Ham United
30 jan 10
Voto:
@Cpt-ivy: I confess I don't understand some things. I mean: we’ve been spinning in the same muck for several months now, not just a few posts. Your review on Dylan Dog is over a year old (I haven’t checked, but I reserve the right to do so tomorrow). It was discarded with arguments (which were extensively explained to you) and not out of mere whim. As you well know, other reviews have been discarded for the same reason. Yet, after a year (or more), you continue to emphasize the issue... I don't understand: you say you want to align with the site’s choices, you talk constantly about editorial line, you claim your input isn’t criticism but merely "advice", yet when a decision is made that you don’t agree with, you bring the issue up again after a year. You even end your self-imposed exile just to highlight a supposed inconsistency in the "editorial line." I mean: what was the need to let us know - for the umpteenth time, through comments, emails, and chats - how you feel on the matter?! It's not exactly new that one can review individual sporting events. Sfascia himself reviewed a tennis match some time ago and it didn’t seem like there was an outcry, there didn’t seem to be the feared clogging, and I don’t think you sent a review about tennis. So I wonder where/how things have "changed" with the publication of the review on the derby. Also, the issue regarding the supposed "usefulness" of your statistics frankly leaves me a bit puzzled. If they were meant to be useful to the staff, then you could have sent them (earlier) only to the webmasters. If they were supposed to be useful to the users, frankly, I don’t understand "for what." To be honest, I also don’t understand why someone who claims to be a former user keeps sending reviews and commenting, but whatever…
Voivod Killing Technology
Voivod Killing Technology
29 jan 10
Voto:
It's a strange feeling to reread a page from so long ago... especially because today, it's very likely that I wouldn't even be able to write such a long review! :D Thank you all so much for (re)stopping by!
Barclays Premier League Portsmouth vs West Ham United
Barclays Premier League Portsmouth vs West Ham United
29 jan 10
Voto:
And in fact it's a gag (as the reviewer was keen to specify)...
Barclays Premier League Portsmouth vs West Ham United
Barclays Premier League Portsmouth vs West Ham United
29 jan 10
Voto:
@Josi: you're right, dear. It's just that I wanted to say it worse! ;)
Barclays Premier League Portsmouth vs West Ham United
Barclays Premier League Portsmouth vs West Ham United
29 jan 10
Voto:
@Cpt: Look, I'm not a statistics expert, but I think the risk of congestion is much higher with comics and similar items than with matches. The number of publications is enormous among Italian, Japanese, and American comics, whether monthly, biweekly, or weekly. Even calculating just one review for each Marvel series, I believe the risk is very tangible. Not to mention the inevitable duplicates (e.g., the first Dylan Dog). On top of that, comics have a decent following on the site. Matches, on the other hand, are fewer in number; those that are broadcast on TV are even less, those that generate real interest are even fewer, and those that should motivate someone to write a review are, I would say, even fewer. Moreover, football reviews don’t seem to have garnered great success. So, I reiterate, I still think these are different things that can't be compared. Just my personal opinion, but it seems to me that it has at least a bit of foundation.
Similar users
Groups
Editor
zzo_guardi
Grunged
SantoNatal
Cartuns
Cactus
CasoUmano
Rewards
2006
2010
2015
november 2006
august 2007
february 2008
april 2008
may 2008
april 2010
september 2015
week 41 - 2006
week 45 - 2006
week 46 - 2006
week 33 - 2007
week 48 - 2007
week 51 - 2007
week 9 - 2008
week 16 - 2008
week 21 - 2008
week 30 - 2008
week 34 - 2008
week 38 - 2008
week 41 - 2008
week 48 - 2008
week 25 - 2009
week 37 - 2009
week 44 - 2009
week 16 - 2010
week 22 - 2010
week 45 - 2010
week 37 - 2015
week 3 - 2016
week 4 - 2016
week 5 - 2016
Gran Visir -la recensione
week 1 - 2010