Buy for
$9.99
(3 items)

Release date: 8 November 2013
Style: Progressive metal

Rating:

8.3 | 18 votes

Owners:

7 have it
8 want it


01. Cold Wave Eruption
02. Ecocracy
03. Drifting Station
04. Moments And Monuments
05. Blackwater Horizon
06. Core Resiliency
07. Chemical Dawn
08. End(Durance) Part III
09. Full Moon Inferno [bonus]

Review


Line-up
Øystein Garnes Brun - guitars, programming
Andreas Hedlund - bass, programming, vocals

Staff review by
R'Vannith

Rating:
7.7
Cronian is where two Borknagar big names, Andreas "Vintersorg" Hedlund and Øystein Garnes Brun, like to put their heads together and push their creative boundaries.

Read more ››
published 20.11.2013 | Comments (0)



Comments page 2 of 2

‹‹ Back to the Albums Pages: 1 [2]
Comments: 68  
Users visited: 99  
Search this topic:  


Cynic Metalhead - 20.11.2013 at 16:37  
  Lol for terrific war between Joe and Kiwi. Before it gets deleted or something, I should save posts on my laptop. I'll read it again. BTW, I love when Joe goes for cut, copy and paste dictionary words for his redemption.
mz - 20.11.2013 at 17:17  
 
Written by Cynic Metalhead on 20.11.2013 at 16:37

Lol for terrific war between Joe and Kiwi. Before it gets deleted or something, I should save posts on my laptop. I'll read it again. BTW, I love when Joe goes for cut, copy and paste dictionary words for his redemption.


I initially wanted to start this argument but since LeKiwi's language is somehow advance and hard for me, especially in vocabulary department, I gave up. Also, I exactly had Marcel and Joe as people who will bring up this discussion

Edit: I forgot to complete this sentence. This was mean to have this form :" I exactly had....in my mind"
!J.O.O.E.! - 20.11.2013 at 17:22  
 
Written by mz on 20.11.2013 at 17:17

I initially wanted to start this argument but since LeKiwi's language is somehow advance and hard for me, especially in vocabulary department, I gave up. Also, I exactly had Marcel and Joe as people who will bring up this discussion

Advanced in appearance, yet fails to understand basic meanings of words as well as apparently chopping and changing meanings for himself to use against other people and then accusing them of misunderstanding those words.
mz - 20.11.2013 at 17:29  
 
Written by !J.O.O.E.! on 20.11.2013 at 17:22

Advanced in appearance, yet fails to understand basic meanings of words as well as apparently chopping and changing meanings for himself to use against other people and then accusing them of misunderstanding those words.


I think I agree with you here.
LeKiwi - 20.11.2013 at 19:09  
Rating: 7
Written by !J.O.O.E.! on 20.11.2013 at 15:53

Ah, the strawn-man fallacy, along with argumentum ad hominem. Attempting to misrepresent my own points by disproving them with caricatured and extreme notions and attacking me rather than my statements of fact. Or in this case: totally baseless desperate swipes (so I suppose really calling it a straw man would be giving you too much credit for such a limp attack). I have already refuted your argument by showing that your use of words does not coincide with accepted uses by referring you to examples taken from sites of scholarly importance. You chose to ignore this point and are, once again, trying to falsely ascribe a level of frustration to me. I don't need to deny anything that stems from such a transparent and lamentable last stab at saving face. So, I would like to see proof of this "frustration" you speak of. Otherwise:

As you will see below, it was clear that your use of ad nauseam was completely inappropriate and simply an attempt to discredit my claims. You have continuously failed to provide proof with implications that use of "uninspired" and "forced" would be inharmonious with "good", and for good reason - there is none
Quote:

(and clearly you didn't understand the argumentum ad nauseam fallacy; that's a bald-faced lie. If you did you wouldn't have accused me of attacking you personally (ad hominem) using that as an example, saying that your arguments made me feel nauseated, because that's clearly not what it means. The fact you would lie outright with the evidence right there out in the open instead of admitting you misunderstood something says an awful lot about you).

As I pointed out before, I was well aware of the terminology and even confirmed its definition before replying. I noted that you accused my argument to be nauseating as a negative connotation in an attempt to debase my argument. I did not point that out because I believed I physically made you feel nauseated. The fact that you would use the term ad nauseam implies that you believed I was simply reiterating my argument to no avail, yet you refused to acknowledge what I pointed out: your endless misinterpretation the definition of overall. You continued to argue despite this fact - the reason why I continued to argue the point. Thus, your labeling of my argument as ad nauseam was an attempt to debase a perfectly valid claim. Ad nauseam is only appropriate when an argument has no proof, yet I've presented all the proof on the matter that was necessary. You've done a decent job of ensuring your arguments were the subject of as many logical fallacies as possible
!J.O.O.E.! - 20.11.2013 at 19:15  
 
Written by LeKiwi on 20.11.2013 at 19:09

Ad nauseam is only appropriate when an argument has no proof, yet I've presented all the proof on the matter that was necessary.

What proof? Please write it here, so I know what exactly what it is. I've given you primary dictionary definitions that directly contradict what you've said. What proof have you offered? Please refrain from argumentum ad nauseam as well. Proof is hard evidence, not reiteration.

You haven't given me proof that my arguments were born of frustration either, I want that proof here too.
LeKiwi - 20.11.2013 at 19:26  
Rating: 7
Written by !J.O.O.E.! on 20.11.2013 at 19:15

What proof? Please write it here, so I know what exactly it is. I've given you primary dictionary definitions that directly contradict what you've said. What proof have you offered? Please refrain from argumentum ad nauseam as well. Proof is hard evidence, not reiteration.

You haven't given me proof that my arguments were born of frustration either, I want that proof here too.

Well, language is partially interpretive, so no one can offer you said hard evidence. I don't see any dictionary definitions that contradict any of my statements, otherwise I would have noticed them.

Regarding your frustration, of course I have. You wouldn't have claimed ad nauseam had you not been fed up of my argument for whatever reason. The only conclusion to this is that we will simply agree to disagree since it is clear that neither side has significant evidence to prove their claims, or am I wrong?
!J.O.O.E.! - 20.11.2013 at 19:34  
 
Written by LeKiwi on 20.11.2013 at 19:26

Well, language is partially interpretive, so no one can offer you said hard evidence. I don't see any dictionary definitions that contradict any of my statements, otherwise I would have noticed them.

The contradiction lies in the total omission of synonyms between "good," (from the 7 score) and the adjectives "uninspired" and "forced." The argument "language is partially interpretive" is purely anecdotal which is superseded by the definitions present on a variety of websites. In summary: you haven't presented proof of any kind.

Quote:

Regarding your frustration, of course I have. You wouldn't have claimed ad nauseam had you not been fed up of my argument for whatever reason. The only conclusion to this is that we will simply agree to disagree since it is clear that neither side has significant evidence to prove their claims, or am I wrong?

This is also anecdotal and at best, speculative. You reiterate the same points, make fallacious statements like "I have presented all the proof I need" yet present no proof, as evident here. Once again, accusing someone of argumentum ad nauseam is nothing to do with emotion and me being "fed up," it is from simple observation. This is a misunderstanding of the idea, or a lie. In either sense you haven't presented evidence of any kind. I won't bother asking you again.
LeKiwi - 20.11.2013 at 19:58  
Rating: 7
Written by !J.O.O.E.! on 20.11.2013 at 19:34

The contradiction lies in the total omission of synonyms between "good," (from the 7 score) and the adjectives "uninspired" and "forced." The argument "language is partially interpretive" is purely anecdotal which is superseded by the definitions present on a variety of websites. In summary: you haven't presented proof of any kind.

Enlighten me as to the rationale behind such a contradiction, please.

Quote:

This is also anecdotal and at best, speculative. You reiterate the same points, make fallacious statements like "I have presented all the proof I need" yet present no proof, as evident here. Once again, accusing someone of argumentum ad nauseam is nothing to do with emotion and me being "fed up," it is from simply observation. This is a misunderstanding of the idea, or a lie. In either sense you haven't presented evidence of any kind. I won't bother asking you again.

Any "proof" on the matter is subjective. Ad nauseam was not an appropriate accusation considering that I did not make the same claim over and over. Read back through the posts where I discussed the definition of the word and the related implications to see that I hardly stated the same argument twice. For a lengthy portion of the discussion, you failed to acknowledge that the definition of the word overall was vital to the discussion and contrived arguments on the basis that the word was not present in my original post.

Additionally, it should be noted that there are several reputable sources which associate ad nauseam with being "fed up". I'm well aware you went out of your way to find a definition that suited your needs
!J.O.O.E.! - 20.11.2013 at 20:14  
 
Written by LeKiwi on 20.11.2013 at 19:58

Enlighten me as to the rationale behind such a contradiction, please.

Sorry, I'm not going to buy into your circular bating. The evidence is there, I'm not going to break down every single point I make just so you can stretch this debate ad infinitum.

Quote:
Any "proof" on the matter is subjective. Ad nauseam was not an appropriate accusation considering that I did not make the same claim over and over. Read back through the posts where I discussed the definition of the word and the related implications to see that I hardly stated the same argument twice. For a lengthy portion of the discussion, you failed to acknowledge that the definition of the word overall was vital to the discussion and contrived arguments on the basis that the word was not present in my original post.

Actually, if you notice, I used the term prescriptively: "which no matter how much argumentum ad nauseam you commit yourself to" because I understand your one and only debating tool is indeed argumentum ad nauseam; to continue to draw out the same circular points, using the "I've shown all the proof I need" tropes combined with the same proofless points with no evidence to show for it. I said it in an effort to try to stop you doing exactly what you're doing right now so clearly I failed. You are the very definition of argumentum ad nauseam and prove so with every pointless response designed to leach out every detail by going back an forth again and again without actually admitting your judgements were incorrect. Quite frankly, you're a farce when it comes to the idea of debate. You can take that how you want as I simply have no respect for someone of your calibre. Someone who only cares about having the last word, even if it is brought about by total boneheadedness. That's obviously enough for you.

Quote:

Additionally, it should be noted that there are several reputable sources which associate ad nauseam with being "fed up". I'm well aware you went out of your way to find a definition that suited your needs

You're confusing argumentum ad nauseam with simply "ad nauseam". The entire idea of a logical fallacy is to point out when someone is using logic fallaciously. Ascribing logical fallacies as an emotion attack is to misunderstand the term, which you consistently do with every response about it.

Once again you've used the term "I'm well aware you went out of your way to find a definition that suited your needs" once again a proofless point. The burden of proof lies on you to prove these things. Saying you're "well aware" is not proof.
LeKiwi - 20.11.2013 at 20:32  
Rating: 7
Written by !J.O.O.E.! on 20.11.2013 at 20:14

Sorry, I'm not going to buy into your circular bating. The evidence is there, I'm not going to break down every single point I make just so you can stretch this debate ad infinitum.

I just ever comment containing the word good. You have provided zero evidence. To summarise your argument you stated that simply because good is not a synonym for "uninspired" and "forced" it cannot be concomitant with those terms. Good is not a mutual antonym for the others either.

Quote:

Actually, if you notice, I used the term prescriptively: "which no matter how much argumentum ad nauseam you commit yourself to" because I understand your one and only debating tool is indeed argumentum ad nauseam; to continue to draw out the same circular points, using the "I've shown all the proof I need" tropes combined with the same proofless points with no evidence to show for it. I said it in an effort to try to stop you doing exactly what you're doing right now so clearly I failed. You are the very definition of argumentum ad nauseam and prove so with every pointless response designed to leach out every detail by going back an forth again and again without actually admitting your judgements were incorrect. Quite frankly, you're a farce when it comes to the idea of debate. You can take that how you want as I simply have no respect for someone of your calibre.

They would be circular if you addressed them and gave sufficient evidence to impel me to discontinue arguing the point; you, however, did not as I have shown above. I find that comical coming from you, considering that during my entire experience on this website discussing with you, you have continuously failed to address my points, proceeding to make contradictory responses. I am forced to reiterate my arguments as a result of your incompetence.
Quote:

You're confusing argumentum ad nauseam with simply "ad nauseam". The entire idea of a logical fallacy is to point out when someone is using logic fallaciously. Ascribing logical fallacies as an emotion attack is to misunderstand the term, which you consistently do with every response about it.

Once again you've used the term "I'm well aware you went out of your way to find a definition that suited your needs" once again a proofless point. The burden of proof lies on you to prove these things. Saying you're "well aware" is not proof.

As I said before your use of argumentum ad nauseam was invalid if not from an emotional perspective. Suggesting that your accusation was devoid of emotion suggests that you believe I was reasserting my argument to "make it true" when, in truth, had you acknowledged my claims, as is commonplace in traditional debates, then I would not have had to reiterate my arguments. Still no proof of my argument's invalidity.
!J.O.O.E.! - 20.11.2013 at 20:39  
 
Written by LeKiwi on 20.11.2013 at 20:32

They would be circular if you addressed them and gave sufficient evidence to impel me to discontinue arguing the point; you, however, did not as I have shown above.

I'm just going to let the autistic donkey end this for me. I can't think of a more appropriate appraisal for you to be honest.

LeKiwi - 20.11.2013 at 20:44  
Rating: 7
Written by !J.O.O.E.! on 20.11.2013 at 20:39

I'm just going to let the autistic donkey end this for me. I can't think of a more appropriate appraisal for you to be honest.

Weeeeeeeeell done, you've shown your true colours. I commend you I knew I wasn't the one lacking debating skills

It seems we are fated to reach an identical conclusion in every instance of our discussions; your forfeit as a result of your inability to prove your baseless claims, failure to acknowledge my arguments, and the (likely) subsequent emotional distress as evinced by your overt insults.

I'm aware that my arguments cannot be proved either, but at least they're plausible.
Mr. Doctor - 20.11.2013 at 21:13  
  If you ask me: You BOTH are a fucking joke.

Now, I better check this album out and contribute with an on-topic comment.
!J.O.O.E.! - 20.11.2013 at 21:16  
 
Written by Mr. Doctor on 20.11.2013 at 21:13

If you ask me: You BOTH are a fucking joke.

Now, I better check this album out and contribute with an on-topic comment.

I take full responsibility. I should know that arguing with asperger's sufferers is an impossible task as I've done it in real life to the same effect
Mary N. - 21.11.2013 at 21:15  
  For the change of mood and adding a bit of humor to the whole conversations ; I see some principles of absurd literature here, people talk but they don't communicate On topic ? well after I heard the album I would let you know.
TheCybershifter - 22.11.2013 at 19:20  
  Quite boring album. But I won't rate it probably - I mean, I don't want to stir up another endless debate
Rulatore - 27.11.2013 at 19:09  
  I'll agree with the first comment, feels forced and unispired. If I heard it, without knowing the name of the band, I'ld bet that it was Borknagar.

And oh my god, that's some off topic right there

Advertise on Metal Storm
Pages: 1 [2]


Login or register to post here.



Similar topics

Forum Topic Similarity Started
Albums Infest - The Next Will Be Yours 3 16.08.2013 by Boxcar Willy
Albums Lacrimas Profundere - Antiadore 3 24.05.2013 by Dark Forever
Albums Chastain - Surrender To No One 3 08.12.2013 by Vasil de Shumen
Albums Blood Ceremony - The Eldritch Dark 3 28.05.2013 by Pazdzioch
Albums Grayceon - Pearl And The End Of Days [EP] 3 14.02.2013 by Draugen



Hits total: 3064 | This month: 80