rebelde

a review that simply isn’t a review, but rather a summary of the book's content while omitting the ending for decency's sake. a book I haven't read and, fortunately, have no intention of reading; I say fortunately because if I had intended to do so, this "review" would have revealed the plot, ruining it for me. awful.

have patience, punisher, but I just can't hold back; first you write your encyclical on a supposed maturity of yours, such that you shouldn’t be hanging around this site anymore, which, as far as I'm concerned, is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard; but then, as if that weren't enough, you start bickering like a thirteen-year-old who has had a negative review of Tokio Hotel, while presenting a review of disarming minimalism, completely devoid of any argumentation, a vacuous succession of insults and nothing else. but at least these are just personal opinions. rather, I would like to understand more generally what sense it makes to pick on Bono, calling him a "hateful philanthropic rooster with delusions of grandeur"; I mean, let me understand, if he didn’t give a damn and blew all the money he makes instead of doing charity, would you like him better? and based on what reasoning? this isn’t a polemic, I just want to understand.

Wow... he's beating me by two!

@hetzer: have you lived in China? when? where? why? how long? as long as it’s not too personal. because you know, I live for China.
@macaco: in my opinion, the most suitable word to define all of this, as I have already expressed in the past, is regime; to the word regime, you can add the adjective that pleases you the most; it’s flexible and multifaceted, it lends itself to all the thousand nuances of the disgust we are accustomed to. as for the Mills case and its silence, I want to point out how Veltroni even managed to pick the wrong moment to resign, giving a perfect excuse to the media not to talk about the aforementioned case. the review, I may be pedantic or perhaps not very attentive, but it seems to me that in letting oneself be carried away by passion, it is not very indicative regarding the actual contents of the work in question; but you are probably right, "The rest you already know, and I don't want to dwell too much..."

At first glance, I must say that I found them quite disgusting. And I stand by the colorful comment number 7.

very nice review. the album, a masterpiece.

I think they are a group with potential, even though they haven't done anything extraordinary yet, actually… first album salvageable, second no (but I liked "eleonor" a lot, and also "walk away" and "what do you want to" weren’t bad). I haven’t listened to this one, but I saw Ulysses on TV and I quite liked it. The video is nice too, where, as often happens, they seem drunk. I'll give it a listen.

Ok, hetzer, thank you for the reports, I will inform myself. However, when I was talking about facts lacking credibility, I was obviously referring to what I cited (that is, the facts I was aware of), which are also the most widespread on Mediaset, from what I've seen. In any case, I still completely disagree with the "double standards" argument that Travaglio would use towards Le Chavalier and his "antagonists." I assure you that for someone like me, who closely follows Travaglio’s investigations, this argument just does not hold: it’s obvious, however, that there is more discussion about those in power, who therefore cause more damage. I think this is inevitable. Adieu.

great review, and a book that I absolutely must read.

Hetzer, you're not listening to me, for heaven's sake. I'm really losing my patience. I don't want to convince you to follow Travaglio, far from it. The fact is that all the cases you mentioned ("judges transferred because they were investigating left-wing politicians, or about D'Alema, Fassino, and Unipol") and many others, Travaglio has indeed talked about them: so before you pass judgment, get informed yourself; or are we being disingenuous? I've told you in every way that I see the crap EVERYWHERE, and I'm certainly not a big supporter of Di Pietro's party; you're the one trying to make me look like a blind anti-Berlusconi, loyal to some party. But on the other hand, why do I keep explaining things to you if you, as always, block your ears and hear what you want? I was serious when I asked for clarifications regarding Di Pietro and his possible skeletons, besides the son intercepted doing something not illegal, who resigns out of decency, and the wife in the party, which is completely scandalous and puts him on par with the worst local mafiosos. So Hetzer, let's put all the cards on the table: do you have anything to say or are you just talking nonsense? If you reply again by dodging the questions, I swear I'll insult you.