JimMorrison

But have you seen that it has been inserted?

Pleasant review, good uxo...

But how many porn DVDs do you have at home? No, I would at least like to have an approximate estimate of 0.18%, considering the daily purchase rate and the loans granted... As soon as you get the precise calculation from your secretary, let me know.

Hey, you know you're right? Maybe the problem is the rampant inflation. Today 10,000 Lire are worth something but tomorrow you'll wipe your ass with them. Good job DC, you've even ruined Monopoly after so many years in power.

Great STIPE, you’ve been made fun of in another review and as usual (typical of human cases) I find you here commenting to the dog's cock. But that's fine with me; given your cultural level, it doesn't surprise me that you didn't understand the review... Look, I'm naming you human case straight away, you go directly into the list without passing Go and without the 10,000 Lire.

De-Blob, your comment is sharp; you perfectly captured the nonsense of STIPE's post... For this, you deserve a bag of chips with a DragonBall figure as a surprise. In my opinion, you should put it on file or at least give me an official notice to pass on to the LNUDCUDD managers...

@Paolos: could you explain your comment? No, because I don't understand where the overvaluation might be, but above all, I would like to know what the weight of the years has to do with the evaluation... It's not like it's a woman you have to take to bed, the movie. If you can convince me with your reasons, I swear I'll throw away all the albums by Area.

<<<musically discreet, commercially (once) tough. But you know, things don’t go hand in hand. Flunked. Today they’re almost ridiculous>>> Just quoting, eh...

<<<Jim, but you judge the Rolling Stones based on who they are now; I don't see much difference between your comment and Iside's, except for the fact that the caliber of the artists is light-years apart. No hard feelings. Bye. >>> Okay, no hard feelings, but your comment has absolutely nothing to do with the context. Re-read my post in the review of the Rolling Stones, and you’ll realize that I'm not judging them for who they are today but for who they've always been (IMHO). And today they are even more so. And don’t come to me with talks about their importance in the musical history of the 20th century, because that is undeniable and incontrovertible; I'm not saying otherwise. But this certainly doesn’t coincide with musical talent in the strict sense of the term. Whether I like them or not is an objective fact; I say it and it should be taken as such...

Great Hal, I wanted to be the first to comment but that big tagger Sfascia beat me by a few thousandths of a (nano)second... I guess I should listen to this. Right, original purchase sight unseen.