Fenrir

I understand, it's the result of the Brutal. And then you want us to believe the stories that it doesn't hurt anyone... :-)

But you... haven't started using drugs, have you Tepes?

thrash: to hit, to beat, to strike. trash: nonsense, junk, to throw away. As you can see, there are differences.

beautiful review, really...

Hey, he left the same comment three times, what happened?!?!?!?! Anyway: I know, Ole, I'm just saying that referring to this, the recovery discussion can't be made, I wasn't trying to criticize :-) P.S. the discussions arose due to some comments and controversies, unfortunately not thanks to the review itself...

Regarding the interest in something different from one’s own world, I agree with you once again. Unfortunately, on Deb, you either write about familiar things or you already have a name, because you risk being ignored quite a bit. This is generally the case. But I can't criticize too much because I am like this as well. Personally, my motivation is quite selfish, and I regret it: I’m not very interested in other fields because I am not that knowledgeable in my (or my) own. Three-quarters of my knowledge about the types of music I listen to now I have gathered from Deb; since I don’t really have that much time in my day to dedicate to them, I prefer to focus on the things I consider “necessary,” meaning I dedicate myself to exploring the things I currently enjoy. I still have a personal need for growth from this perspective, and therefore I prefer to concentrate on that. Why do I keep going back to yet another Metallica review? Precisely because I want to know if it’s something interesting that can add something new to me, or just another photocopy. I would still like all reviews to receive a certain amount of attention, not just the “usual” ones. Best regards.

Regarding the interest in something different from one’s own world, I agree with you once again. Unfortunately, on Deb, you either write about familiar things or you already have a name, because you risk being ignored quite a bit. This is generally the case. But I can't criticize too much because I am like this as well. Personally, my motivation is quite selfish, and I regret it: I’m not very interested in other fields because I am not that knowledgeable in my (or my) own. Three-quarters of my knowledge about the types of music I listen to now I have gathered from Deb; since I don’t really have that much time in my day to dedicate to them, I prefer to focus on the things I consider “necessary,” meaning I dedicate myself to exploring the things I currently enjoy. I still have a personal need for growth from this perspective, and therefore I prefer to concentrate on that. Why do I keep going back to yet another Metallica review? Precisely because I want to know if it’s something interesting that can add something new to me, or just another photocopy. I would still like all reviews to receive a certain amount of attention, not just the “usual” ones. Best regards.

Then it's true that I may have exaggerated a bit, and I apologize to the reviewer, but if in the future you manage to put into practice what you wrote in the last paragraph, it will be much better. (I raise the average)

Regarding the interest in something different from one’s own world, I agree with you once again. Unfortunately, on Deb, you either write about familiar things or you already have a name, because you risk being ignored quite a bit. This is generally the case. But I can't criticize too much because I am like this as well. Personally, my motivation is quite selfish, and I regret it: I’m not very interested in other fields because I am not that knowledgeable in my (or my) own. Three-quarters of my knowledge about the types of music I listen to now I have gathered from Deb; since I don’t really have that much time in my day to dedicate to them, I prefer to focus on the things I consider “necessary,” meaning I dedicate myself to exploring the things I currently enjoy. I still have a personal need for growth from this perspective, and therefore I prefer to concentrate on that. Why do I keep going back to yet another Metallica review? Precisely because I want to know if it’s something interesting that can add something new to me, or just another photocopy. I would still like all reviews to receive a certain amount of attention, not just the “usual” ones. Best regards.

Thank you for the response, captain. I’ll tell you, what you wrote is more than right, but I want to make sure you understand my point of view: I’m not against duplicates, not normally. If someone has different ideas, opinions, or information to share, they are more than welcome. If they also want to try to show us the cauldron of emotions they experienced while listening to it, that’s fine. I myself have a duplicate among the things I would like to review (and sooner or later I will). But yet another track by track of RTL, no (and for Ole: the last similar review was published two months ago, you decide). I would have given more to a masterfully written review, but this one is not (as it was before, that’s fine), I’m sorry. As for the space or the home, that’s certainly not the reason for my dislike; it’s the writing that’s the same as a thousand others. If someone wants to make a copy review of the Iron, that’s okay, but I won’t give it a high score. We should ask ourselves if the review is useful, even just for a discussion. I have albums on which I will never write reviews, not because they are over-reviewed (actually, I believe no one knows them) but because it wouldn’t serve a purpose. Not on deb. One thing about needing to have written other pieces before commenting (since I feel implicated): I don’t believe this is necessary, otherwise some people couldn’t even review, since they don’t play (myself included). As for my ideas, if I think something, I say it. If it’s a poorly written review but also a nice attempt, I won’t be harsh. If this is the case, I can’t help but address it. I too could do a track by track of RTL, having nothing new to say, but, and I hope you’ll forgive me, I try to avoid it.