JimMorrison

Why is there anything strange about how it’s written? There have been a lot of nonsense thrown around and you cling to that piece of a post that could be misunderstood? Is this what you mean? Because if that's what you mean, we're in bad shape... Then: <<<I don't share your opinion>>> But what opinion? The only opinion I expressed is the negative judgment on the review, are you saying you like it now? I repeat: those are not opinions but facts, what do you want me to do, send a written report certified by a notary? No hard feelings...

Josi, I thought you had forgotten the password...

This time I've repeated it twice in a post, you know. Now try to respond seriously, without bringing up the nonsense about taking sides, egotism, and all the rest. Don't go Off Topic, I beg you.

Ahahah, how long did it take you to think this up? Even now, did you write in childish language to make yourself understood, or can't you even understand yourself and often get confused? Yes, okay, let's say I accept it so we can move on, but what is there to understand in your post? I'm 20 comments in trying to explain something that has generated a series of unrelated nonsense. I've explained why this review was probably published, that I didn't edit it, and that there is a reasoning behind everything. At this point, I expect someone to say: "No, I don't agree with the method applied" or "The editor has questionable taste," not the nonsense you posted. I don't like the review any more than you do; it doesn't say anything, and I've already stated this in the first comments and tried to explain the hypothetical reason why Fritz's review was rejected in contrast to this one. What the hell do the positions have to do with it? These are facts, not opinions. Should I perhaps say that I'm the editor of this review to meet you halfway? Or that Fritz is unpleasant, and that's why it can't be published? But come on, what should I change my position on? I see facts, not opinions. <<<Issuing judgments on those who think differently than you>>> It's not me who thinks this way: I didn't edit the review, I didn't read it before (before publication) except when I commented, and every editor's choice has its reasoning. Like it or not.

Your comment is beautiful, ocram, but once again you missed the mark. You need to aim more, consider the wind, and make an effort to understand. However, I'm really tired of repeating the meaning of that post; by the fourth time, I have to start thinking that those reading it lack a minimum of intelligence or foundation for a serious discussion. In fact, just reading your last post makes it clear: you don't know how to write correctly, so it's unlikely that you'll know how to read properly... I'm sorry, but I had to tell you. P.S.: How can I be in tune with someone who shoots off without knowing how things really are? Three things you’ve stated so far, Doctor with greater awareness, and all of them are wrong. Ah, maybe you want me to agree with you: good job, you’re right.

No, happy birthday Elvis. Featuring Nguyen Le on electric mandolin.

I forgot to reply to ocram: <<<I was saying that I had sent a review about an event trying to find the music where it wasn't explicitly present... I believe a review with this intention has more right to be approved than a review like this that fails to talk about music where it would be so easy to do so...>>> Oh yes, if you can send a review, talking about music, on the transformation of caterpillars into butterflies, it will be put in choice.

Give me the reasons why the reasoning is not convincing. I haven't edited the review, and that's a fact (so I didn't read it before you intervened - before publication); I say that if it was published the editor must have had their reasons, and I also say that if they liked it they would have featured it on the homepage on the left. All facts, not mental gymnastics. Yes, the speech is boring, incredibly boring.

It's the sleep, obviously. If you tell me that the review was edited by me, that implies a reading of it before it gets published, right? Right. It’s implied, it’s implied. The more I think about it, the more it’s implied. I tell you, instead, that I didn’t edit anything and that before my intervention (more or less simultaneous, you know, it was a few seconds later), I hadn’t read it as I am not the editor of this review. Now, do I need to send a drawing or is this point finally clear?

Ocram, it seems you don't follow the discussions very well either, reading a bit here and there, perhaps skipping entire parts of the comments, admit it. Just for the sake of chronicle, I repeat what was said above, clear even to the Doctor: <<<I respond that you are mistaken and that I never read the review before posting (let's say I posted right after reading it, so you get there?)>>> Everyone has their own evaluation criteria, which can be debated, but it's theirs. It may also be wrong, but it's a way of thinking, thus with a mandatory percentage of negative feedback...