Why did you reply to my comment to restate the first part of what I said?
Yeah, that's what the comment you replied to starts with.
Your comment makes sense in the frame of "ugly people are allowed to make music," my comment refers to the "music was better" part of the post.
The ugly people you mentioned don't support your comment's argument against the original assertion because their music is terrible, not "better."
Some music sucked in the boomer's days, made by ugly and pretty people alike.
But the contention is about music being better, and that's some bad music.
Like tent poles and aircraft ĥulls. Checks out
Well I think you bought "Aluminum Free," whereas the one on the left doesn't say that. That brand sells both aluminum-full snd aluminum-free.
The bootlicking version of "why do you need privacy if you have nothing to hide?"
People are so bad at punctuation now. Idiots like this just perpetuate it. Where's the last period on your acronym? It's even more cringe as a result.
... that is there question.
Can you remember the first time you felt insecure about your ability to come up with backstories? What was that like? And so on
Would you say what you're seeking is "more intimacy," up to, potentially, the most possible intimacy?
I would suggest looking at his different interests and getting curious. If you're interested in the guy, it should be pretty easy to find reasons why this film or that game are endearingly-this-or-that in a way that makes you like and respect him even more.
Then, you bond over it; by trusting his taste (intimacy) enough to check out that show or whatever interest, you now have an opportunity to get deep (intimacy) into what you each individually felt (intimacy) about it, and maybe you felt something in common. That's some foundation for intimacy.