The Punisher

Sorry Giovanna Dellefoglie if I meant you. If I meant Maria Capasanta the apology is withdrawn. Instead, the apologies really go to all those teachers of III C d'Italia that I have irreparably compromised.
To nickGhost: now you have really shown that you are "super partes" and can make true and balanced comments: I bet that if I say "come on, how are you talking?" it makes you laugh less, right? I wonder why?!? Take off that kilo of idols that cover your eyes and start thinking FOR YOURSELF, or go back to Mass where you can find as many dogmas as you want.

"The part of the damn that gets censored" is an invention all of your own. I have never played the part of the "damned," resentful, and I have not glorified Stalinist regimes or Gestapo or anything like that. I have calmly presented my theses, without demagoguery or easy rhetoric. I cleared things up with the editors, and that's it. The nonsense was bringing it up in the posts, giving this review a negative turn that it didn’t deserve.

Yes. To call it funny might be a bit too much, but taking it out of context isn't fair either. It's one thing to read it all at once, and perhaps it makes sense that way; taken out like this, I agree with you. Now, making the necessary comparisons, for example, if I extract the phrase "ma come parli?" out of context, that's one thing and it isn't funny; however, if I put it in a Moretti film, it takes on a different meaning. Right, you bunch of polemical mystifiers? :-))

Here we go again: for the 5th time I've said that THE CENSORED PART was two comments with the post by "Maestrina" that mysteriously disappeared in the first version. The last one is what closes the original review now (I thank the editors for the complete publication!). As you can read, nothing fundamental or decisive (I keep repeating it!) but, if I may point out: A) the back-and-forth between the two teachers halfway through the review and the final closing with Maestrina’s clarification give the review a more comedic and grotesque aspect compared to closing it with the three parties involved (Sgarbi, me, and Aldo) just cursing each other out, right? B) the fact that the editor himself is playing along, pretending to be a moderator in the out-of-control debate and cursing as well, seems to me like a touch of British humor that transforms the review from something “frustrating” to a sort of “circus” where we are all charmingly involved (editor included). As usual, the little mouse gave birth to a mountain that deflated in half an hour. I viewed it as a purely literary issue, others may have played it up and turned it into a Matter of Great Principles and Freedom. Is the misunderstanding cleared up?

Not having been censored for "uncomfortable things" but rather for "absolutely light" parts of little substance, I do not believe I need to become Don Quixote about anything or embark on any great battle. If the cuts had concerned "heavy" or fundamental matters regarding my position on the singer or anything else, I assure you I would have fought the battle you have in mind. There have simply been careless oversights on various fronts, and that's it. By the way, I have already expressed my belief in the good faith of the editors in my regard some posts ago...

Dear JL, even those who jump from the non-flat demonstrate courage. So what?

Freedom, too, is a chimera and DOES NOT EXIST. It may be hard for you, but that's the way it is (unless you live in utopia and total anarchy... but those are old arguments!)

I think you're right mavakagar, it would have been better if I had handled this on my own with the editors and that’s it. I messed up a bit.

from the mine: write to me privately because I didn't understand it...

JL: I don't care who you are, but without gray areas, I could give you some answers privately. Simple, right?