The Punisher

I've said it before: it could have been handled a bit better, but I also understand that everyone can make a little slip-up: me with writing a review that drags on too long, the editor in making a small change they thought would be an improvement, and the readers blowing things out of proportion over a distraction or oversight. If I may say one thing, my past reviews have NEVER been modified, cut, or censored even once. So kudos to the editors who work their asses off trying to keep the show going out of pure passion, amid the thousand daily hassles (including these exaggerated accusations of NOT DEMOCRACY or MEDIA DICTATORSHIP, which I believe to be completely false and unfounded). Damn it.

Who are you, Jack Los? Are you threatening me? Will I also have a suspension day doing my next reviews "behind closed doors"? If you know something, feel free to tell me calmly, or if you prefer, write it to me privately.

A note: all these gray posts talking about courage, about stepping up... Meh!

It's not about "being a coward" but simply about cutting to the chase. Every editorial team has its rules (which are clearly stated at the time of the review), and I find it fair to respect them. A large part of my reviews straddle the boundaries of what's allowed, in terms of length, the themes addressed, some gratuitous slapstick violence, and sometimes being offensive—in short, being different from the others. This entails greater "effort" and responsibility for the Editors in deciding whether or not to publish certain things. Since this review is original and unconventional, they took on the burden of publishing it by making these two cuts (I repeat: marginal and insignificant to the review). I do not contest the two cuts; I merely say that MAYBE it would have been better to notify the author beforehand, or not, as had been done in the past? However, I would suggest not to continue fueling a fake-controversy that has little to do with poor Busi and his Musical Work.

I was kindly asked in private not to make "public whinings," which I agree is not appropriate: it seems right to me not to give too much emphasis to something trivial and marginal like this. Can we talk about Busi, if you don't mind?

Ah, sorry... I got it, I still need to warm up this morning... unfortunately, posts are something UNCONTROLLABLE, a REVIEW is (and in part it's right that it is, right?)

Explain yourself better, Precisino, because I didn't understand a damn thing: what is "Dux mea lux"? Who said it? What are you talking about? Why do you so kindly call me "a moron"? Can you explain or are you just shooting off at the mouth to write something?

Let's not stir the waters, guys... some parts that the editors thought referred to a specific person from DeBaser were simply omitted because they were completely irrelevant, but that wasn't the case. I just would have preferred to know this earlier, maybe with a personal post (as has already happened). We could have sorted it out in 10 minutes and that would have been the end of it. It just seemed "not very nice" to me. That's it. Stop.

If I reveal the censored part, it could trigger something big. I repeat, NOT FOR THE CONTENT, which is absolutely ridiculous, but for the principle that is being broken and because "someone" would feel ABSURDLY involved (which already hints at the psychological fragility of a person who cannot accept being mentioned, even remotely, assuming it is actually her, given that there are no direct references), right Editors?

Dear Alex82: "Nothing is created, everything is destroyed" T.P. :-)