Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Jim Necroslaughter

1 ... 49 [50] 51 ... 54
Audiofile / Prosanctus Inferi
« on: September 11, 2009, 08:37:04 PM »
Prosanctus Inferi: Rapidshare, Blogspot, Megaupload

Prosanctus Inferi

Prosanctus Inferi - Sacreligious Desecration In Excelsis (2007, Mediafire)

Prosanctus Inferi - Pandemonic Ululations of Vesperic Palpitations (2010, Mediafire, 128) (This is the vinyl rip, which has a more powerful and fuller production than the CD, which had the old mix)

Prosanctus Inferi - Red Streams of Flesh (2011, Mediafire, V0)

Interzone / Re: Truth is an offense
« on: September 06, 2009, 03:36:02 PM »
You are giving me more credit than you think.  My point was the the article seemed like a propaganda report, listing all the reasons why other people are wrong with him, arranged in order of category.  My problem with it was not the evidence, but whether the reporter was being honest and had an agenda.  You asked me if the story made sense, and I thought it didn't, though I guess it is still very possible.

If the things they said in the article were true and confirmed, I would have had no trouble believing in physical evidence. 

And by the way, I don't think bullistics are trivial.

fair enough.  I understand what you're saying is slightly different from what I thought you were saying.  I'm not trying to bust balls, I just think stories can get you just as close to the truth as anything else, which is something people don't seem to buy into that much, reserving physical evidence and science to tell them truth.  I know I'm using the most obvious example in the world, but just think of the OJ Simpson trial.  the story made sense but he got off on bullshit physical evidence aspects.

'trivial' might have been too strong of a word, and don't get me wrong we were good jurors and did our due diligence despite the fact that the vast majority of us knew they were guilty at the beginning of deliberation.  by all means we went through all the evidence, even ballistics.  it's just that in this case, it didn't change a thing (and I knew it wouldn't from the get-go) - see, it would have been a shame if some slight aberration in balistics, or what have you, caused a juror to become skeptical even in the face of other overwhelming evidence.  without expalining the entire case to you, you just have to trust me, in this context, ballistics were trivial compared to a mountain of other evidence and testimony.  I mean one of the defendants dropped his cell phone at the scene of the crime - FAIL!

Interzone / Re: Truth is an offense
« on: September 06, 2009, 04:57:21 AM »
And on a trivial note, the second link doesn't add up (I read the second first), despite the constant claims of evidence.  It seems too anecdotal, like "This is the reason this guy is an asshole and the other story is wrong", but thanks to the nature of the articles, no truth is here to be found.

you seem to be implying that anecdotal evidence is less truthful than other kinds of evidence.  you're out-thinking yourself and relying on "science" to tell you what truth is.  I was on a jury that tried four defendants on several counts of attempted homicide a few years ago, and anecdotal evidence is EVERYTHING.  we did a blind vote when we began deliberation, and the majority was guilty across the board, the few things we had to hash out were trivial technicalities like ballistics.  thank god we only deliberated for 12 hours or so and sent those bastards down the river.  stop thinking "does the 'science' make sense?" and start thinking "does the STORY make sense?"  GUILTY!

Metal / Re: Maryland Deathfest 2010
« on: September 02, 2009, 03:34:33 PM »
Thank you Deadite.  Maybe I'll check out Sadistic Intent.

they're good.  I quite like them.  'Ressurection' is a favorite of mine.  have fun.

Metal / Re: Primal Origins of Sell-out Success
« on: September 02, 2009, 03:31:32 PM »
LOL.  Do you have a link to the original story?  I just went to the zoo yesterday, and watched some cotton-top tamarins - they have punk-rock looking hair to boot, heh.

Interzone / Re: Faking it
« on: August 30, 2009, 04:31:58 PM »
ugggh.  are some places not even worth trolling?  UG.com is unbelievable.

Interzone / Re: Metal and Romanticism
« on: August 30, 2009, 03:27:39 PM »

How do you know but every bird that cuts the airy way, is an immense world of delight, closed by your senses five?

The roaring of lions, the howling of wolves, the raging of the stormy sea, and the destructive sword, are portions of eternity, too great for the eye of man.


Other planes lie beyond the reach of normal sense and common roads.  But they are no less real than what we see or touch or feel.
Denied by the blind church these are not the words of God, the same God that burnt the knowing

Interzone / Re: Metal and Romanticism
« on: August 29, 2009, 05:49:52 PM »
“Blake’s work is thus an unprecedented and confounding critique of the very cornerstones of Judeo-Christian civilization: the Word and the Law. Evil is traditionally represented as a turning away from the one or the other – from Satan’s non servatim to the eating of the “forbidden fruit”, but here the Word and the Law are literally presented as manacles closing away the boundless possibility of the universe to the dull prison of the senses and the holy books. Science and religion cease to be opposing forces in Blake’s understanding, instead becoming obstacles to true knowledge – one by binding sight in the laws of the material universe, the other by binding thought in the words of the holy books. In this sense, the only possible “Good” as far as Blake is concerned, is the rebellion of sight – growing to see multiple possibilities through ecstatic vision. For Blake this probably meant mystical and artistic gnosis, but intellectually it can be applied to all kinds of pluralist, multilateral thinking, if not to literal “mind-expansion”.
-Daniil Leiderman

that is awesome!  I would add something, but it is simply perfect as is.

I think metal has thoroughly transcended the "words of the holy books."  less so the "laws of the material universe," however.

Metal / Re: Sacramentum question.
« on: August 24, 2009, 05:34:20 PM »
I think one of the guys is in a band called Runemagick?  never heard them, though.

Interzone / Re: Religion?
« on: August 24, 2009, 05:29:30 PM »
...remember The King...

someone asked a while back (either in this thread or that other religion thread that kind of got derailed):  why do we need the God-concept, at all?  To me, the usefulness of the God CONCEPT is that it completes the grand hierarchy of the universe.  otherwise, what is at the top?  it is good for man to have to submit to something, ultimately.  The God concept represents a perspective beyond all perspectives.  If you want to call this "nature," I'm good with that, but "God" seems even more vast.  just musing.

Interzone / Re: Religion?
« on: August 18, 2009, 08:44:47 PM »
I'm done with the "we hate x" people. They're always looking for something to blame. The situation is, in contrast, quite simple: there are good people and bad people. Evil is not a mystical force, but a tendency toward selfish oblivion and hatred of life. Find those who hate life and kill them; find those who love life and want to make it better, and put them in charge. That's how you become the next great empire and make life more fun.

this is what it all boils down to for me.  reverential or resentful?

Interzone / Re: Write a metal review for ANUS?
« on: August 14, 2009, 11:02:14 PM »
What I don't understand is why people read nihilism and then think that anything matters, that there is any sort of greater cause or purpose: social order, eugenics, totalitarianism.

The older I get and the more I learn about the world, the more I think that the only thing that matters is getting stoned down by the river.  And maybe chicks.

what you are describing is defeatism or fatalism, not nihilism.

Interzone / Re: Romanticism: opposed to science?
« on: August 11, 2009, 04:15:42 PM »
Here is a story about William Blake that always summed it up for me:

Thomas Taylor gave Blake, the artist, some lessons in mathematics and & got as far as the 5th proposition which proves that two angles at the base of an isosceles triangle must be equal.  Taylor was going through the demonstration, but was interrupted by Blake, exclaiming "ah never mind that - what's the use of going to prove it.  Why I see with my eyes that it is so, & do not require any proof to make it clearer."
Could you possibly elaborate on the point you're trying to get at? 
Honestly, and I'm not trying to be a dick either, I'm not sure that I can explain it to you so that you perfectly understand it.  For me, the lesson works best as an anecdote, but that's how I understand things.  To put it as best as I can:  what matters for Blake is THAT he knows x, not HOW he knows that x is true, in other words, he BELIEVES x.  It's not that truth verification isn't important, it's just that belief in x can be justified without verifying it's truth via mathematics it can also be justified through sense perception.  At the end of the day, in order to operate within physical reality I find science and rational justification not AS necessary/important as lots of people think.  There is more than one way to operate within reality and affect a positive change.  For me, Blake puts science/math/rational justification in its proper place.

Interzone / Re: Religion in Modern America
« on: August 10, 2009, 05:55:32 PM »

everyone is equal, because "Science" proves it!!!one

Except that science doesn't prove it.  You know this, so I must be missing your point.  Are you claiming that science is only what we make of it (i.e. that pseudo-science should be considered as part of science)?

Didn't Stephen Jay Gould try to imply this with "The Mismeasure of Man," though?  I don't want to say he made hard conclusions, but I definitley remember that the gist was, essentially, science proves we are more equal or similar than we thought.

Interzone / Re: Romanticism: opposed to science?
« on: August 10, 2009, 05:27:14 PM »
Here is a story about William Blake that always summed it up for me:

Thomas Taylor gave Blake, the artist, some lessons in mathematics and & got as far as the 5th proposition which proves that two angles at the base of an isosceles triangle must be equal.  Taylor was going through the demonstration, but was interrupted by Blake, exclaiming "ah never mind that - what's the use of going to prove it.  Why I see with my eyes that it is so, & do not require any proof to make it clearer."

1 ... 49 [50] 51 ... 54