JimMorrison

<<<I don't consider him a true connoisseur at all because he likes the diarre, but because he likes the most stupid and useless group in the world>>> So, from what you're saying, if he likes the most useless and stupid group in the world, he's a connoisseur -> Inconsistency. I mean: 3?

Sure, Alessio, you too with your coherence… If someone tells you that diarrhea is a meal for gentlemen and that there's nothing better to order in a French restaurant, while you obviously don’t enjoy it, do you consider them a gourmet? No, to know

***Eustachio -> Yeah, alright...

"Great Spirit, protect me from judging a woman, not before I have traveled a good twenty centimeters in her Eustachian tubes."

My K, I know this very well; indeed, the discussion then evolved (I hadn't read all the previous posts and I made that clear) highlighting how history (including the forms of art) has showcased both the negative and positive aspects of the peoples involved in the discussion. That’s why I agree with beloved Trell and also with you if you notice: the Indians (like all the others) are not historically considered the bad guys across the board.

What can I say, Fidia, you are the first one to bring questions like this to the table. Believe me...

<<<Therefore, history does not always justify the truth. Also because history books are written by the winners>>> Oh, do the elders of your village write history books? You see, Fidia, even here the elders say the same thing, but they certainly don’t go write it in books to mislead the minds of the occasional Bolzanian. If they claim this, it’s only because they experienced history without any awareness: they weren’t reading, they weren’t watching the news, they weren’t doing anything. For them, only order reigned. The means to achieve it was 99% from the unknown countryside.

<<<Do you think Roman civilization had equals>>> Don’t bring up Greece, okay... :)

Fidia, you’re pissing cheerfully outside the bowl for two reasons. First off, YOU brought up the peoples that, in YOUR opinion, were considered the epitome of the bad guys (but did you mention the Romans?), and you’ve been contradicted. So far, I think it’s clear. Now, moving on to the second point, the Romans have nothing to do with the previous discussion and deserve a separate consideration. This is because every people is regarded entirely differently from others. <<<Take any history book and you’ll read pages and pages about the greatness of the Romans. They have been mythologized>>> Oh, is that false? Do you think Roman civilization had equals? No. With all the possible "cons" of the most famous empire in history, it’s undeniable the level of civilization they achieved. <<<On the other hand, the other peoples are "barbarians," uncivilized, rough, yokels, in short, the worst possible>>> Well, in comparison, they were. And remember, they were certainly not little angels on clouds with harps in their hands. It’s just that Rome was stronger; if it had been the other way around, do you think we would still be living in Eden today? <<<But it is omitted that the Romans were the bloodiest murderers in history, let alone Hitler>>> This is a convenient lie. Look, I certainly wasn’t present back then because I was too young, yet I know: 1) they killed Christ; 2) they invaded the entire known world; 3) they enforced their rule with military power; 4) they exploited slaves; 5) the Colosseum; 6) Nero, etc., etc. And I swear I wasn’t there. How will I know? Come on, really…

"Good Musicians" I don't know where you read that... >>> Ah, the rating for the album and everything you wrote in the review refers to another band, I understand. Sorry then, I thought you were referring to Oasis.