listened to the new album... the vocals arent as brutal as they could be...(bring back chalky!! )

but theyve announced an australian tour! theyre going everywhere, however, no all ages in sydney!!

I heard that the new album is supposed to be quite good, but i'm not going to download, i will buy it, because i'm loyal to great bands like these... most of the time.

Written by Visioneerie on 11.09.2008 at 04:28

I heard that the new album is supposed to be quite good, but i'm not going to download, i will buy it, because i'm loyal to great bands like these... most of the time.

It is really good. Not too keen on the vocals though.

Written by [user id=33061] on 13.09.2008 at 00:02

Written by Visioneerie on 11.09.2008 at 04:28

I heard that the new album is supposed to be quite good, but i'm not going to download, i will buy it, because i'm loyal to great bands like these... most of the time.

It is really good. Not too keen on the vocals though.

How does it compare to their previous works ?

I have to say their vocals are more "boring" then the others. It is still a solid album.

Written by [user id=33061] on 13.09.2008 at 12:40

I have to say their vocals are more "boring" then the others. It is still a solid album.

Remember to only compare the new album to Symbols Of Failure, as they changed vocalists.

And thats what I'm comparing it too.

I'm amazed people are so hung up on vocals. If it were an epic doom metal band or something I could understand but this kind of music? It wouldn't matter if they had a little girl doing vox, it wouldn't affect the music for me personally.

Weird to say that one part of the music doesn't affect the music... I think in this case the issue is that the unique vocals on Scepter were for many the defining aspect of the band's sound. I don't know, it seems like a pretty major aspect of the music to just ignore.

Written by [user id=4365] on 15.09.2008 at 18:26

I'm amazed people are so hung up on vocals. If it were an epic doom metal band or something I could understand but this kind of music? It wouldn't matter if they had a little girl doing vox, it wouldn't affect the music for me personally.

I don't understand how vocals don't matter. A little girl's vocals would be completely out of place.

I think the better way to put it is if the vox aren't noticeably bad then it shouldnt affect the overall sound to much. Considering that Psycroptic has always had original vocals, people may notice that this time around they're just more mainstream.

Personally I don't see vocals as an integral part of the music, it's more of a bonus. The fact is I, and most people I'd imagine would listen to music without vocals but would never listen to just vocals alone. For me, bad vocals don't detract that much from good music. I would happily listen to a band if the vocals weren't up to scratch but had great music, I'd just simply get over the fact the vocals don't quite match it and adjust to it however if the band had amazing vocals but terrible music I can't see anyone listening to it.

What I'm saying is that music is way more important than vocals but I've only seen people complain about the vocals (which aren't exactly wildly different from their old stuff) and not even mention the quality of the music itself. Obviously vocals will have some impact on the overall quality, like I dunno 10% or something in my eyes but most of the time it's a superficial, often irrelevant aspect of a lot of music. I've never listened to a band for its vocals, with possible exceptions of say Candlemass, Warning, Solitude Aeturnus etc. where I would say it's much more part of the music than a fairly standard tech death band. You ever heard of an instrumental epic doom band? Just saying I think people are talking about superficial aspects of a band of which could frankly do without, clearly for the people here vocals are the main aspect of a band which personally I have trouble grasping but then again generally I find music without vocals to be much more effective.

Well, I've known Jason before he join Psycroptic when he was back with M.S.I. (doing bass) and even before that doing vocals with Born Headless. He's was a good growler back then, and is now, but nothing that's too special - just more unique.

Chalky's vocals are just better overall, as well as he shared writing a lot of the music, which now that he's gone Dave has had to do most/all of the writing. The song writing is still at a high level (going of Symbols Of Failure) but there will always be an urge to compare what the band does now to what they did on the first two releases - for me atleast.

Written by [user id=4365] on 16.09.2008 at 10:57

Personally I don't see vocals as an integral part of the music, it's more of a bonus. The fact is I, and most people I'd imagine would listen to music without vocals but would never listen to just vocals alone. For me, bad vocals don't detract that much from good music. I would happily listen to a band if the vocals weren't up to scratch but had great music, I'd just simply get over the fact the vocals don't quite match it and adjust to it however if the band had amazing vocals but terrible music I can't see anyone listening to it.

What I'm saying is that music is way more important than vocals but I've only seen people complain about the vocals (which aren't exactly wildly different from their old stuff) and not even mention the quality of the music itself. Obviously vocals will have some impact on the overall quality, like I dunno 10% or something in my eyes but most of the time it's a superficial, often irrelevant aspect of a lot of music. I've never listened to a band for its vocals, with possible exceptions of say Candlemass, Warning, Solitude Aeturnus etc. where I would say it's much more part of the music than a fairly standard tech death band. You ever heard of an instrumental epic doom band? Just saying I think people are moaning about superficial aspects of a band of which could frankly do without, clearly for the people here vocals are the main aspect of a band which personally I have trouble grasping but then again generally I find music without vocals to be much more effective.

Don't get me wrong dude, vocals aren't the most important thing to me in music. It's the music/songwriting. Though i'll say that the vocals always add a layer, or feel, even if you're not exactly paying attention to them. Think about this ... would you be able to bare clean vocals in a death metal band, and i mean only clean

Anyways, i'm pumped for Observant. Remains to be seen if it'll be better than Symbols, but i have no intention of it overcoming what they did on Scepter.

So how does The Isle of Disenchantment compare to The Scepter Of The Ancients? I've only heard the latter, but I've become kind of curios...

Written by [user id=4365] on 16.09.2008 at 10:57
For me, bad vocals don't detract that much from good music. I would happily listen to a band if the vocals weren't up to scratch but had great music, I'd just simply get over the fact the vocals don't quite match it and adjust to it however if the band had amazing vocals but terrible music I can't see anyone listening to it.

I just find it strange to consider vocals separately from the music; it's all part of the music, all part of the whole. One aspect of the music being unique and interesting can distract from other parts of it being mediocre as is the case on Scepter. But the great vocal performance doesn't make it a great album, it makes it a mediocre album with a great vocal performance. Newer Psycroptic is mediocre albums with pedestrian vocals; the vocals are the main thing that have changed and that is what people focus on. So if you were ignoring the vocals all along then of course you wouldn't see a big change, but personally I always try to consider an album holistically rather than arbitrarily placing different values on different parts of it. Especially on Psycroptic's Scepter it's impossible for me to believe that the band considered the vocals an afterthought - so if the listener considers the vocals as such they aren't really engaging the album on its own terms.

Written by totaliteraliter on 16.09.2008 at 18:02

So how does The Isle of Disenchantment compare to The Scepter Of The Ancients? I've only heard the latter, but I've become kind of curios...

Production is a little less (compared to The Scepter Of The Ancients) but still good, music is still technical and the vocals are just as good. So basically it's just a little less production that is the only real noticable change.

Written by totaliteraliter on 16.09.2008 at 18:02

So how does The Isle of Disenchantment compare to The Scepter Of The Ancients? I've only heard the latter, but I've become kind of curios...

Written by [user id=4365] on 16.09.2008 at 10:57
For me, bad vocals don't detract that much from good music. I would happily listen to a band if the vocals weren't up to scratch but had great music, I'd just simply get over the fact the vocals don't quite match it and adjust to it however if the band had amazing vocals but terrible music I can't see anyone listening to it.

I just find it strange to consider vocals separately from the music; it's all part of the music, all part of the whole. One aspect of the music being unique and interesting can distract from other parts of it being mediocre as is the case on Scepter. But the great vocal performance doesn't make it a great album, it makes it a mediocre album with a great vocal performance. Newer Psycroptic is mediocre albums with pedestrian vocals; the vocals are the main thing that have changed and that is what people focus on. So if you were ignoring the vocals all along then of course you wouldn't see a big change, but personally I always try to consider an album holistically rather than arbitrarily placing different values on different parts of it. Especially on Psycroptic's Scepter it's impossible for me to believe that the band considered the vocals an afterthought - so if the listener considers the vocals as such they aren't really engaging the album on its own terms.

On its own terms? That is hilarious, as if there's a specific and definite way to approach an album... That's a ridiculous notion, regardless of what the band were attempting to do with their music.

There's nothing arbitrary about my approach to music. Despite you finding it strange, I don't consider vocals as part of the music itself. To me it's a totally separate element that, as I say, has little impact on the overall style and quality and I know that I'm not missing out or misunderstanding an album by placing vocals in a separate and less important category. I've also stated from time to time that music to me is a visual tapestry of pictures and textures. Vocals are far too human (in most cases) to be a great contributor to that picture. Psycroptic's 'Scepter...' vocals are no where near unique or interesting enough (see your average death metal band and/or Byzantine) to be regarded as anything more than a mere conveniance to finding a specific target audience for the music. The only time I truly enjoy vocals is either when they're incredibly unique or distinctive ie, !T.O.O.H.!, Immortal, Meads of Asphodel etc. or are utilised as more of a musical instrument rather than mere vocals such as Velvet Cacoon, Darkspace, Wrath of the Weak etc. Additionally one of the appeals of industrial/drone/breakcore/noise etc. is the lack of reliance on vocals the majority of the time

I don't find your comments to be particulary valid, especially as you just confirmed what I've been saying: that vocals don't elevate an average album to anything more than an average album or indeed work toward the negative and in total is nothing more than a "distraction." You say that vocals are a part of the whole yet by admitting that it doesn't change the value of an album, whereas say, crappy guitar riffs would, you've arbitrarily separated it from the rest of the music. Heh, I'm glad we finally agree on something but I wonder why you listen to a band that you consider mediocre. Just for the vocals? I doubt it.

Written by Visioneerie on 16.09.2008 at 15:24

Written by [user id=4365] on 16.09.2008 at 10:57

Personally I don't see vocals as an integral part of the music, it's more of a bonus. The fact is I, and most people I'd imagine would listen to music without vocals but would never listen to just vocals alone. For me, bad vocals don't detract that much from good music. I would happily listen to a band if the vocals weren't up to scratch but had great music, I'd just simply get over the fact the vocals don't quite match it and adjust to it however if the band had amazing vocals but terrible music I can't see anyone listening to it.

What I'm saying is that music is way more important than vocals but I've only seen people complain about the vocals (which aren't exactly wildly different from their old stuff) and not even mention the quality of the music itself. Obviously vocals will have some impact on the overall quality, like I dunno 10% or something in my eyes but most of the time it's a superficial, often irrelevant aspect of a lot of music. I've never listened to a band for its vocals, with possible exceptions of say Candlemass, Warning, Solitude Aeturnus etc. where I would say it's much more part of the music than a fairly standard tech death band. You ever heard of an instrumental epic doom band? Just saying I think people are moaning about superficial aspects of a band of which could frankly do without, clearly for the people here vocals are the main aspect of a band which personally I have trouble grasping but then again generally I find music without vocals to be much more effective.

Don't get me wrong dude, vocals aren't the most important thing to me in music. It's the music/songwriting. Though i'll say that the vocals always add a layer, or feel, even if you're not exactly paying attention to them. Think about this ... would you be able to bare clean vocals in a death metal band, and i mean only clean

Anyways, i'm pumped for Observant. Remains to be seen if it'll be better than Symbols, but i have no intention of it overcoming what they did on Scepter.

Man are you kidding? I would love to hear a clean vocaled death metal band I think it would be pretty original and interesting. Actually if you know of any I'd be interested in hearing them?

Written by Xtreme Jax on 17.09.2008 at 13:42
Production is a little less (compared to The Scepter Of The Ancients) but still good, music is still technical and the vocals are just as good. So basically it's just a little less production that is the only real noticable change.

Sounds worth listening to eventually.

Written by [user id=4365] on 17.09.2008 at 14:19
On its own terms? That is hilarious, as if there's a specific and definite way to approach an album... That's a ridiculous notion, regardless of what the band were attempting to do with their music.

I'm just saying an effort should be made to understand what the artists were intending. I don't see what's funny about that...

Written by [user id=4365] on 17.09.2008 at 14:19
There's nothing arbitrary about my approach to music. Despite you finding it strange, I don't consider vocals as part of the music itself. To me it's a totally separate element that, as I say, has little impact on the overall style and quality and I know that I'm not missing out or misunderstanding an album by placing vocals in a separate and less important category. I've also stated from time to time that music to me is a visual tapestry of pictures and textures. Vocals are far too human (in most cases) to be a great contributor to that picture. Psycroptic's 'Scepter...' vocals are no where near unique or interesting enough (see your average death metal band and/or Byzantine) to be regarded as anything more than a mere conveniance to finding a specific target audience for the music. The only time I truly enjoy vocals is either when they're incredibly unique or distinctive ie, !T.O.O.H.!, Immortal, Meads of Asphodel etc. or are utilised as more of a musical instrument rather than mere vocals such as Velvet Cacoon, Darkspace, Wrath of the Weak etc. Additionally one of the appeals of industrial/drone/breakcore/noise etc. is the lack of reliance on vocals the majority of the time

Isn't this exactly what arbitrary is? You've come up with your own way of dividing, categorizing and ranking aspects of the sound based on your personal preferences, and then apply that to music uniformly. This is why I think engaging music 'on its own terms' is a better approach: one should consider the emphasis the artist has placed on certain aspects, because all art is not the same. Looking at all music based on the same set of standards that you have come up with independently is hardly giving the music a fair shake.

When are vocals ever not used as a musical instrument? Ignoring the vocals is no different than ignoring the guitars or the drums or the lyrics or the synth noises in the background; all are parts of the art that should be taken into consideration to some extent. And importantly, that extent should not be the same for every album.

Written by [user id=4365] on 17.09.2008 at 14:19
I don't find your comments to be particulary valid, especially as you just confirmed what I've been saying: that vocals don't elevate an average album to anything more than an average album or indeed work toward the negative and in total is nothing more than a "distraction." You say that vocals are a part of the whole yet by admitting that it doesn't change the value of an album, whereas say, crappy guitar riffs would, you've arbitrarily separated it from the rest of the music. Heh, I'm glad we finally agree on something but I wonder why you listen to a band that you consider mediocre. Just for the vocals? I doubt it.

I'm afraid you have completely misinterpreted me. I did not say that vocals never change the value of an album, I said that in this specific case I did not feel the vocals were notable enough to have a significant impact on the overall impression the album creates.

I listen to Psycroptic because they make for good ear candy and have fun singalong parts.

Written by totaliteraliter on 17.09.2008 at 20:24

I'm just saying an effort should be made to understand what the artists were intending. I don't see what's funny about that...

It seemed more than that to me. You seemed to suggest a rigid, precise way of approaching a band's music as if to quantify it. That's what I found amusing.

Isn't this exactly what arbitrary is? You've come up with your own way of dividing, categorizing and ranking aspects of the sound based on your personal preferences, and then apply that to music uniformly. This is why I think engaging music 'on its own terms' is a better approach: one should consider the emphasis the artist has placed on certain aspects, because all art is not the same. Looking at all music based on the same set of standards that you have come up with independently is hardly giving the music a fair shake.

Your initial analysis of my approach to music suggested I was doing it randomly, I was merely pointing out that this is not the case. Now you seem you to be applying an almost mathematical approach to the way I look at things. You're missing my point again. I'm simply saying that I know for a fact that vocals have little musical value in most forms of metal, with this understanding I can usually let vocals have little affect my opinion. Stop looking at everything so precisly and literally and have some faith in my approach to music.

When are vocals ever not used as a musical instrument? Ignoring the vocals is no different than ignoring the guitars or the drums or the lyrics or the synth noises in the background; all are parts of the art that should be taken into consideration to some extent. And importantly, that extent should not be the same for every album.

When did I ever say I ignore vocals? Please point that out. As I've said, in most cases vocals alone don't make music whereas musical instruments used together do. I don't approach every album in the same way, nobody does, I think you're just stating the obvious there without actually making a point.

I'm afraid you have completely misinterpreted me. I did not say that vocals never change the value of an album, I said that in this specific case I did not feel the vocals were notable enough to have a significant impact on the overall impression the album creates.

Ok once again it seems as though you're changing the meaning of what you said just to prove a point. I can see you turning this into a battle of semantics. Maybe you should be a little more concise in the future.

Written by [user id=4365] on 17.09.2008 at 20:59
It seemed more than that to me. You seemed to suggest a rigid, precise way of approaching a band's music as if to quantify it. That's what I found amusing.

I don't see how I suggested that, but fair enough I guess...

Written by [user id=4365] on 17.09.2008 at 20:59
Your initial analysis of my approach to music suggested I was doing it randomly, I was merely pointing out that this is not the case. Now you seem you to be applying an almost mathematical approach to the way I look at things. You're missing my point again. I'm simply saying that I know for a fact that vocals have little musical value in most forms of metal, with this understanding I can usually let vocals have little affect my opinion. Stop looking at everything so precisly and literally and have some faith in my approach to music.

I don't know how you can call that a "fact" by any stretch of the imagination, sounds more like a personal preference to me. Maybe you should give your definition of "little musical value."

Written by [user id=4365] on 17.09.2008 at 20:59
When did I ever say I ignore vocals? Please point that out. As I've said, in most cases vocals alone don't make music whereas musical instruments used together do. I don't approach every album in the same way, nobody does, I think you're just stating the obvious there without actually making a point.

I'm sorry if you find ignore to strong a word; I'm mainly drawing that from your little girl example... perhaps "pay very little attention to" is more accurate?

In most cases guitars or bass or drums alone don't make music; again, when are vocals ever not used as a musical instrument?

If you don't approach albums in the same way, why the uniform commentary on the importance of vocals?

Written by [user id=4365] on 17.09.2008 at 20:59
Ok once again it seems as though you're changing the meaning of what you said just to prove a point. I can see you turning this into a battle of semantics. Maybe you should be a little more concise in the future.

I think it was pretty clear I was talking about Scepter in that post. There is a significant difference between clarifying my comments due to a misinterpretation, as I did, and intentionally contradicting myself, as you are nearly accusing me of doing. I have no interest in scoring "debate points" through deceit and do not appreciate the implication otherwise...

Written by totaliteraliter on 17.09.2008 at 21:32

Lulz, little girl example? Way to keep it above board there mister stroppy

Heh, you don't score debate points by deceit, you do it by deliberately drawing out arguments and turning them into something completely different and as someone righty pointed out, by picking on every little thing you can to continue the debate. Actually on here you're kinda famous for it: only you could turn my rather understandable point that vocals are less important than the actual music into... well whatever it is you've been pining about in this thread. I have to say it's quite amusing watching you go round in circles but my initial points stand, I approach music in the way that I always have and find it very fulfilling doing so. I understand that everyone has their own way of looking at music but I was just a little surprised to see such emphasis put on the vocals alone. Simple as that. If you want to continue begging me to explain every little point I make then go ahead.

Written by [user id=4365] on 17.09.2008 at 21:44

Written by totaliteraliter on 17.09.2008 at 21:32

Lulz, little girl example? Way to keep it above board there mister stroppy

Heh, you don't score debate points by deceit, you do it by deliberately drawing out arguments and turning them into something completely different and as someone righty pointed out, by picking on every little thing you can to continue the debate. Actually on here you're kinda famous for it: only you could turn my rather understandable point that vocals are less important than the actual music into... well whatever it is you've been pining about in this thread. I have to say it's quite amusing watching you go round in circles but my intial points stand, I approach music in the way that I always have and find it very fulfilling doing so. I understand that everyone has their own way of looking at music but I was just a little surprised to see such emphasis put on the vocals alone. Simple as that. If you want to continue begging me to explain every little point I make then go ahead.

: Pardon me for expecting people to be able to explain and defend their position. Stating something as an obvious fact when there is plenty of reason to dispute it leads to debate. Surprising, I know. You can hardly say that your initial point still stands if you have not answered the criticisms raised against it.

Written by totaliteraliter on 17.09.2008 at 21:54

Written by [user id=4365] on 17.09.2008 at 21:44

Written by totaliteraliter on 17.09.2008 at 21:32

Lulz, little girl example? Way to keep it above board there mister stroppy

Heh, you don't score debate points by deceit, you do it by deliberately drawing out arguments and turning them into something completely different and as someone righty pointed out, by picking on every little thing you can to continue the debate. Actually on here you're kinda famous for it: only you could turn my rather understandable point that vocals are less important than the actual music into... well whatever it is you've been pining about in this thread. I have to say it's quite amusing watching you go round in circles but my intial points stand, I approach music in the way that I always have and find it very fulfilling doing so. I understand that everyone has their own way of looking at music but I was just a little surprised to see such emphasis put on the vocals alone. Simple as that. If you want to continue begging me to explain every little point I make then go ahead.

: Pardon me for expecting people to be able to explain and defend their position. Stating something as an obvious fact when there is plenty of reason to dispute it leads to debate. Surprising, I know. You can hardly say that your initial point still stands if you have not answered the criticisms raised against it.

I'm glad you added to what you initially said there. My initial points were personal opinion, nothing more so I don't have to answer to any criticism you or anyone puts against it. I was simply intrigued as to why people place so much emphasis on vocals but in your rather typical fashion you've stretched it into a factual argument of which you will never leave satisfied. You can expect people to defend themselves but you can't expect people to jump through every little hoop you throw at them, they're just not stupid enough for that I'm afraid so maybe once in a while you should come down from your little pedestal and join normal people. Do you not find it odd that people get sick of talking to you?

Written by [user id=4365] on 17.09.2008 at 22:36
I'm glad you added to what you initially said there. My initial points were personal opinion, nothing more so I don't have to answer to any criticism you or anyone puts against it. I was simply intrigued as to why people place so much emphasis on vocals but in your rather typical fashion you've stretched it into a factual argument of which you will never leave satisfied. You can expect people to defend themselves but you can't expect people to jump through every little hoop you throw at them, they're just not stupid enough for that I'm afraid so maybe once in a while you should come down from your little pedestal and join normal people. Do you not find it odd that people get sick of talking to you?

Obviously your posts are personal opinion; I am raising criticisms against it. That is, reasons your opinion may be incorrect. Obviously you don't have to answer criticisms, but if you choose not to it's simply disingenuous to claim that your point still stands. I don't find it odd that many people don't put much thought into their comments and would rather not have their views challenged.

Written by totaliteraliter on 17.09.2008 at 22:53

Written by [user id=4365] on 17.09.2008 at 22:36
I'm glad you added to what you initially said there. My initial points were personal opinion, nothing more so I don't have to answer to any criticism you or anyone puts against it. I was simply intrigued as to why people place so much emphasis on vocals but in your rather typical fashion you've stretched it into a factual argument of which you will never leave satisfied. You can expect people to defend themselves but you can't expect people to jump through every little hoop you throw at them, they're just not stupid enough for that I'm afraid so maybe once in a while you should come down from your little pedestal and join normal people. Do you not find it odd that people get sick of talking to you?

Obviously your posts are personal opinion; I am raising criticisms against it. That is, reasons your opinion may be incorrect. Obviously you don't have to answer criticisms, but if you choose not to it's simply disingenuous to claim that your point still stands. I don't find it odd that many people don't put much thought into their comments and would rather not have their views challenged.

I think you misunderstood personal opinion. As in, an opinion that is personal to someone. You can't challenge someone's personal opinion if that's what they believe. As long as that person believes it the point will always stand. It's not unusual to ask others their opinions without having everything you've said challenged just for the sake of argument. If you keep on and on at someone for their personal beliefs then of course people are gonna get pissy with you. Learn to know when to just stop, you don't actually have to keep on and on at someone until they have nothing left to say.

Written by [user id=4365] on 17.09.2008 at 23:04
I think you misunderstood personal opinion. As in, an opinion that is personal to someone. You can't challenge someone's personal opinion if that's what they believe. As long as that person believes it the point will always stand. It's not unusual to ask others their opinions without having everything you've said challenged just for the sake of argument. If you keep on and on at someone for their personal beliefs then of course people are gonna get pissy with you. Learn to know when to just stop, you don't actually have to keep on and on at someone until they have nothing left to say.

You can't challenge a personal opinion? Look:

Person A: "I believe X."
Person B: "X is untenable for reasons Y and Z."
Person A: "My point still stands because I still choose to believe it."

...this is no foundation for a sane or productive discussion.

Written by totaliteraliter on 17.09.2008 at 23:30

Written by [user id=4365] on 17.09.2008 at 23:04
I think you misunderstood personal opinion. As in, an opinion that is personal to someone. You can't challenge someone's personal opinion if that's what they believe. As long as that person believes it the point will always stand. It's not unusual to ask others their opinions without having everything you've said challenged just for the sake of argument. If you keep on and on at someone for their personal beliefs then of course people are gonna get pissy with you. Learn to know when to just stop, you don't actually have to keep on and on at someone until they have nothing left to say.

You can't challenge a personal opinion? Look:

Person A: "I believe X."
Person B: "X is untenable for reasons Y and Z."
Person A: "My point still stands because I still choose to believe it."

...this is no foundation for a sane or productive discussion.

Thank you for proving my point and confirming what I already knew about you.

Written by [user id=4365] on 17.09.2008 at 23:33
Thank you for proving my point and confirming what I already knew about you.

Cryptic and condescending remarks don't lead to productive discussion either. Look, I believe I have adequately indulged your foray into ad hominem territory and grow weary of arguing about the argument. If you wish to continue the previous discussion I am always willing...

Written by totaliteraliter on 17.09.2008 at 23:49

Written by [user id=4365] on 17.09.2008 at 23:33
Thank you for proving my point and confirming what I already knew about you.

Cryptic and condescending remarks don't lead to productive discussion either. Look, I believe I have adequately indulged your foray into ad hominem territory and grow weary of arguing about the argument. If you wish to continue the previous discussion I am always willing...

Ad Hominem territory? Who was it that called who a girl? I wasn't being cryptic, I was thanking you for proving my point about you not knowing when to stop. I don't even know what you're arguing about anymore, you keep changing the subject matter. I wanted to stop talking to you about 4 hours ago after I stated my personal opinion on the way I choose to listen to music, I'm just disappointed with myself that I'm still commenting on this thread.