zuckina

;o) I love you dear

I want a life... speericolataaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!

for me it’s a sensible criticism ;o) anyway, the discussion can end here, I’ve understood you. easy, I mention it also because it’s his review, and it’s true, I love him in a teenage way ;o) what can you do, first there’s hate then there’s love! I wasn’t childish, the fact is that I was a bit unaccommodating, right? and then you’ve never noticed everything else I said in the posts except the critiques directed at you, and that’s being superficial. I’ve read everything you wrote and I understood it all, I even told you! it’s you who didn’t get everything. anyway, it's all good for me, don’t worry. let’s end it here, I’m a stupid and ridiculous person, it’s no problem. I shouldn’t have attacked someone who had built up a credibility. I’ll never do it again, I swear. bye bye

Now we know there's one more fan of Queen and Freddie. Let's not even get into the fact that as a fan you say scandalous things, but tell me how someone who doesn't know this album can be encouraged to listen to it by this review?

I understand that your credibility is important to you, "credibility" that I've built with at least a good ten posts that are quite sensible (so much so that, I repeat, ...caz... fully understood what I wanted to say), I see you're proud of it and you love caz. You're the expert on omelettes, easy says so too. But you can also be hard-headed; I reiterate that I’ve said I understand you, that I understand you more than they do, but you don’t listen. Don't worry, I won't touch your "credibility," sorry, that would be the last thing I'd do, you’ve already revealed yourself. Relax anyway, you don’t need to build a credibility here; they don’t promote you to higher levels. I've already told you that I’m happy to find people who can express themselves calmly and intelligently. You just got upset because I criticized you, while easy and caz simply responded to your arguments. I'm sorry, you're definitely someone who makes sensible statements, and keep your credibility, don’t worry. Bye.

what bullshit responses you're giving!!! it's not a crime... you don't understand and you don't even try to understand... I'm doing it with you but maybe, given the quality of your responses, it's not worth it.

Just to provide examples of acrobatic flipping of the script and the quest for politeness and objectivity to gain acceptance: "one last thing: my speech aims to have general validity. I'm referring to the DT because they are the group being discussed for this review, but I am absolutely not "defending" the works of that group. I am saying things that I think in general." Why this sentence? You don't have to be ashamed of being a fan of Dream, do you understand? No one thinks you’re a fanatic, got it??? I hope you finally understand, it’s statements like this that undermine the value of your ideas at their core. Because in my posts there’s a lot written, but you’ve fixated on just a few ideas. I’ve written much more... believe me. Perhaps I understand you more than Caz and Easycure since I’ve seen Dream in concert and listened to them to death. Bye.

You see that gradually the contradictions come to light and you demonstrate that from the very beginning you didn't understand what I meant while I understood what you were saying. First you say, "I didn't say they must have quality, just that they can't be defined as useless"... now you say, "Yes, such protagonist parts have their own quality, which is the quality of being parts in which sensitivity, talent, etc., etc. emerge," which is quite a difference. Do you understand now?

Actually, sorry, this is the sentence I was responding to: "Do you have any idea of the work, BOTH stylistic AND compositional AND performative, that goes into the leading parts of the DTs? It’s a job that requires extensive knowledge and 'patience,' and to diminish it by categorizing it as an unnecessary form, or filler, is, in my opinion, a mistake."

your sentence: A PROTAGONIST PART, LIKE A SOLO, IS A PART OF A PIECE IN WHICH SENSITIVITY, CREATIVITY, INSPIRATION, MUSICAL KNOWLEDGE, TALENT, AND TECHNIQUE ARE EXPRESSED MORE THAN IN RHYTHMIC PARTS; SO I BELIEVE IT’S COMPLETELY WRONG TO CONSIDER SUCH PARTS AS FILLERS OR SIMPLE FORMS, REGARDLESS OF THEIR QUALITY, WHICH IS ANOTHER ISSUE. m y r e s p o n s e: I CAN DEFINE A SIMPLE FILLER AS A WORK THAT INVOLVES SENSITIVITY, MUSICAL KNOWLEDGE, TECHNIQUE, AND COMPOSITIONAL AND PERFORMATIVE PATIENCE, IF IN MY JUDGMENT THE FINAL RESULT IS THAT. IT'S RIGHT THAT I CAN STATE THIS. YOU ASSERT THAT OBJECTIVELY IT’S NOT RIGHT TO SAY SO, AND THEREBY YOU IMPLICITLY AND INEVITABLY EMPHASIZE THAT THAT WORK, IN YOUR OPINION, HAS ITS OWN QUALITY.