Damage done

[Birgith]

This is (as far as i know) the first post for me in this forum.. but Damage done still rocks, and I would like to know if DT has done any other album thats similar to this one? I've heard some other albums, like Haven, and one other album, can't remember the name of that one.

But still, Damage done is precious. It's awesome. Great. And all that.

I also drink beer.

 

[wildfyr]

Birgith,

the usual suspects comprising the dt forum welcoming committee are away right now, so i guess it's up to me to welcome you.

welcome.

i'd suggest you get Projector and The Mind's I next, and then the rest as you can. But if you should find any of them wherever you may buy them, then you should probably pick them up as you find them available.

enjoy your stay.

rebecca

 

[rahvin]

hello birgith.
please take a minute to check the forum rules so as to identify the proper threads for topics as popular as "damage done" and the likes. no harm done, so don't run away in panic thinking you've made some horrible blunder but since the place is quite big you'll surely find your way a bit better following a couple of directions.
the fact that you like beer is definitely going to help.

rahvin.

 

[Fathomless]

hi birgith,

i'm by no means a regular here but i'll shake the hand of any fellow who can appreciate the masterpiece of damage done. and who quotes nietzsche in his signature.

Cheers.

Fathomless.

 

[Syndrome]

The Mind's I and The Gallery!
The albums you MUST have

 

[U[Sic]M]

Wait a minute! Just hold the phone right there! Dark Tranquillity have released a new album??? Called "Damage Done"??? You learn something new every day, it would appear.

Well, I welcome you...but just because you spell your name with "th". This is cuuwl.

And on your signature: Actually, Nietzsche did go insane...rather majorly at that also. But then again, Nietzsche isn´t the world, so... Well, anyway...

 

[rahvin]

@u[sic]m: it would help if you weren't joking all the time, especially when you hope to piss someone off in the process. it gets boring after the first one hundred posts, as you've been told elsewhere already. try to be just a little more on the collaborative side of this community.

rahvin.

 

[U[Sic]M]

rahvin: Me, joking? You´ve gotta be kidding me. I´m always serious, you know that. And piss someone off?! Never!

To the point, Nietzsche did go insane. I was just trying to teach y´all something about the history of Philosophy. ´Twas not a joke, and ´twas not intended to upset people.

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by U[Sic]M
rahvin: Me, joking? You´ve gotta be kidding me. I´m always serious, you know that. And piss someone off?! Never!

To the point, Nietzsche did go insane. I was just trying to teach y´all something about the history of Philosophy. ´Twas not a joke, and ´twas not intended to upset people.

exactly what i meant. you just won't stop the act.
you see, this is not like with ppl who are overly straightforward, or even offensive because they're expressing what they think/feel. i would respect such a stance because it is out of sincerity and honesty. on the other hand, yours is a masquerade, and not one you put up from time to time just to have a laugh. your whole online persona, here, is made of a constant mirthless joke hoping to elicit some reaction, be it an amused or an annoyed one. you know it, i know it, everyone here with just a little experience does know it.

i won't stop you right here and now, because it would be exceptionally unfair to object to something only because i think it's a stale and tedious pose, but i won't acknowledge your posts anymore as long as they're all a construct, because i would feel i'm being tricked, as if i was talking to a dumb, unresponsive machine. moreover, i'm gonna remove your messages if i feel you're pushing your luck too much, especially when you reply to others in a way that is clearly meant to get an annoyed reaction. this would fall squarely under the rule against posts made with the only purpose of creating an annoyance as far as i'm concerned. so at least go on with your act in a subdued, quiet and pacified way.

rahvin.

 

[U[Sic]M]

(I will refrain from name-calling in this post due to its - believe it or not - seriousness and your being moderator over these lands)

Of course I´m trying to elicit a reaction. I´m almost certain that you are most of the time as well. Wouldn´t communication be a bore if one hadn´t gotten any reactions? However, to hold me responsible for HOW other people react to my posts is absurd.

Other than the above comment, I urge you to rid yourself of the presumptuousness shown in your post, so that I may take you seriously again.


Serious Sic (I couldn´t resist that one)

 

[rahvin]

@u[sic]m: so, is that what it takes to make you step out of character for thirty seconds? couldn't you do it just one post before, and for once reply on topic when i asked you to please stop joking all the fucking time?

name-calling is ok with me if it's ok with your moral standards: i didn't have banned ppl who repeatedly called me a bastard, although "disrespecting a moderator" seems to be worth 8 or 9 warning points out of the 20something needed to be out of um for good. so if you feel like insulting me go ahead: there'll be no consequences apart from those your own self-esteem might choose to unleash on you.

as for your statement about reaction, in all honesty to me it's a wagonload of sophisticated bullshit to persuade the uneducated. if i were to come to your homeland and burn the city to the ground, relatives and loved ones included, you'd probably come after me with the best weapon you can find (hopefully one a little more efficient than your sharpened tongue ) and i don't think saying that "the way you react has nothing to do with my actions" would be a valid saving grace for me. on a smaller scale, it's not other ppl's fault if they should tell you to bugger off after you've played the provoker. and that's what i meant, you know, not that you want to solicit any reaction (as in, have ppl replying to you, which is ok), but that you try to obtain specific reactions. also, it doesn't seem to me that you do it because you're expressing what you feel/think. you do it because you're playing a part.
i'm willing to tolerate this, although i think it's trite and sad, but with the limit of you not repeatedly bashing ppl just because it fits your dastardly cunning trolling plans.
i think it'd be preferrable, however - and that's the last time i go through this, you got it the first time anyway - that you drop the pose a little more often to participate in discussions and have a laugh with the others here, not privately and at them. this wouldn't hinder your being as ironic/sarcastic as you wish, but at least everyone would know you're not on some ego-trip.

that's the extent of my opinion, and, if you wish, of my arrogance. rest assured that if i'll ever want you to take me more seriously than this you'll be the first to notice.

rahvin.

 

[U[Sic]M]

Serious Sic answers once again (as opposed to UNserious Sic, whom everybody loves and adores):

I DID answer seriously and on topic the first time you told me (well, perhaps not the first paragraph). Both that reply and my original remark about Nietzsche were seriously meant, which I clearly wrote in the second post: "´Twas not a joke, and ´twas not intended to upset people.".

Actually, I wasn´t bashing anyone in this thread, nor was I trying to. If I must explain and justify my post - which I now feel obliged to do - I say that the post was merely an attempt at freshening up a clichéd but friendly gesture, viz the act of welcoming a new poster. Instead of just writing "Welcome! You rock for posting at this board! Dark tranquillity rules!" or something similar to that, I chose to liven the post up with an introductory jest, the mandatory welcome and a brief commentary of her signature, with the potential of inviting to discussion (which I think is a rather nice gesture towards a new poster).

Persuade the uneducated? I believe your recent analogy was of rather persuasive and emotional character. I stand firm in my position, though, and point out that I do NOT aim for specific reactions.

Regarding my playing a part: you presume to know me. Tell me, how do you know I´m not playing a part now, as the moderately talkative debater? How can you be so certain that I am not the sarcastically inclined individual I appear to be and many hold me to be? The evidence obviously speaks in favor of the latter, so how can you be so sure of that I´m putting on a show? A problem even more tangible and clear here on the internet, I suppose.

By the way, HAVE I disrespected a moderator?

Sic

 

[rahvin]

@u[sic]m: you have not disrespected me, and as i previously pointed out i'm not one to take offense or react even if you did.

about this topic: the fact that you've never posted a word without a trace of more or less benign sarcasm before might have clouded my judgement, but the part about birgith's nick and the "novelty" of dt releasing a new album - with no smilies to tune down the message - sounded like a real mockery. let me hit the nail harder: i'd have no trouble with your mocking anyone if i thought you were doing it because in your mind those who post new damage done threads are the lowest of worms. i wouldn't agree but i wouldn't even comment: it's your freedom to think and therefore express what you like. but i'm often assuming you're just, as it were, playing the prick (here i am with names, huh?). what you said about nietzsche or her signature didn't even cross my mind.
then please remember i didn't scold you as soon as i saw your post. i just suggested something at first. i thought of letting go trying to get my point across when you, as i still see it, didn't let go even for a minute.

as for what seems to be the core issue, i do not:
- know
- assume to know
- wish i knew
- give a bloody bubu
about who you are in real life. when i refer to honesty and sincerity i'm talking in terms of inner consistency alone. your posts give me the impression you're repeating a superimposed cliché, because they all are exactly alike in their total detachment from what other ppl might want to tell you on a serious note or what the on-topic discussion is about. it is simply impossible for a grown up normal human being to react like an overboard boasting-machine 24/7, so i can say i'm pretty sure you're at least exaggerating your stance.
since it's now clear you're capable of replying with a hint of seriousness, i shall repeat again what i asked of you in the beginning: it'd be better if you could do it some more, so as not to seem disruptive.
that's all. really. of course you're free to take this any way that you like it, but i do hope you'll get me right and not assume i'm here to wage war.
this said, i'm off to sleep.

rahvin.

 

[Birgith]

Yes, Nietszche probably went insane, every philosopher goes insane after a while. And I do like beer, had on this night. Uhm. And yes, th is cool. (?) heh. Well, I look for these records, and also hope for you to further live well (doing this superb english again).

I didn't actually know there was a forum for "Hi, I'm new here"-threads. Still, I don't have to use it any longer. I guess.

 

[Fathomless]

Nietzsche didn't so much go insane. He had syphillis. A symptom of which is insanity. So it's not really like he thunk himself crazy. And also he didn't write anything of significance after his syphillis symptoms manifested themselves, so his insanity late in his life had no bearing on his work.

 

[manuelgv]

Nietzsche actually went insane but the quote is still very good knowing his musician side(which is not THAT good)

 

[Birgith]

Also, Nietszche is German. That must be a big part of his way to insanity?

 

[wildfyr]

Birgith: glad to see you back.

if i was new to the board, i'm not sure i would have returned after reading some of the above banter.

;-)

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by wildfyr
if i was new to the board, i'm not sure i would have returned after reading some of the above banter.

don't tempt me.

rahvin.

 

[wildfyr]

yikes. okay.