Jump to content

What's on your mind?


Apoc

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, FatherAlabaster said:

Wow, he's a caulbearer! I'm really happy for you that you have that experience to look back on. It's what we wanted too. My wife tried to give birth at home but ended up needing to go to the hospital about 3 days in. Eventually it became obvious she'd need an emergency C section. I know it's a routine procedure but honestly it was still scary. This time around it's hospital all the way because of the increased risks to her. She'll try to deliver naturally, but they're not taking any chances.

Hey at least they're going to let her try and that's something of a victory in itself. For awhile there I believe VBAC's were strongly discouraged if not outright disallowed in many hospitals.

But holy hell, did you say you guys went to the hospital 3 days in?? No one should have to endure a 72 hour labor, that's an ordeal well above and beyond the call of parental duty. Glad everything worked out alright in the end though. Hopefully this one will be much easier now on her/your second time around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, GoatmasterGeneral said:

I think that ship sailed when he was about 3. 

I've only got girls and they took their time getting to real PITA stage, like their mother they are lazy :)

 

58 minutes ago, FatherAlabaster said:

Wow, he's a caulbearer! I'm really happy for you that you have that experience to look back on. It's what we wanted too. My wife tried to give birth at home but ended up needing to go to the hospital about 3 days in. Eventually it became obvious she'd need an emergency C section. I know it's a routine procedure but honestly it was still scary. This time around it's hospital all the way because of the increased risks to her. She'll try to deliver naturally, but they're not taking any chances.

My wife spent 23 hours in labor after she was 10 days late with our first. The doctor was keeping an eye on things but he eventually booked her in for a public holiday and said if it doesn't happen natural he'd do the C on the public holiday. We went in at 6am, they found her a bed, he came and checked on her every hour and kept putting things off. At 5am the following morning the kid was born via C section after one of the nurses told the doctor that he'd spent nearly a full day saying it would happen natural and it hadn't it was time he did something because the mother was in pain and she'd had all the pain killers she could have. I think the silly old bastard was trying to deter us from having more kids...maybe we should have listened...oh no that's right we love our kids!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Thatguy said:

But Wolfie..

Yeah, she tried to sell me on it that way "We could call him Wolfie" but I wasn't having it. Wolfie?? Fuck that shit. Name just makes me think of Eddie Van Halen's big fat son. On the other hand Val Kilmer is the Iceman. I also had my Norweigan grandmother Val (short for Valborg) and my wife had an uncle Valentine so we had Val tie-ins on both sides. Also I thought Valkan sounds like a rather good name for King of the Vikings. She actually got it from the movie Van Helsing, Kate Beckinsale's character's brother was named Valken, she just changed the e to an a, even though that doesn't seem to have any effect on the pronunciation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, KillaKukumba said:

My cousin has a Wolfagng who refuses to let any one call him Wolfie. He also has a Cassanova who prefers Cassie and a Petunia that prefers anything but her name.

When he was little his mom called him Puki, (rhymes with cookie) because in Maori puku means belly and as a baby he had a chubby little pot belly. So we all called him Puki. He's 8 now and his grandmother still tries to call him Puki when we video chat occasionally, but he hates it he screams "I'm not Puki!! I'm Valkan!!" so I think he likes his given name at least.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, GoatmasterGeneral said:

Yeah, she tried to sell me on it that way "We could call him Wolfie" but I wasn't having it. Wolfie?? Fuck that shit. Name just makes me think of Eddie Van Halen's big fat son.

I feel really sorry for that dude. He seems genuinely talented, but I could never buy a record knowing it was all going on hamburgers.

The other day, out of curiosity, I watched the music video for Udo's version of "We Will Rock You." All I could think was how miraculous the human body is to withstand that kind of dietary abuse and still be functioning. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have to say as someone who has an interest in military tactics, I am finding the current war fascinating.

Russia seems to have ignored pretty much every military evolution since 1939 and has regressed 70-80 years!  Electronic warfare, suppression of enemy air defence, air superiority, reconnaissance, combined arms, communication and control, flank and rear echelon protection/security, engineering including vehicle recovery, all seem to be completely absent.  Even the basic concept of cratering runways has been largely ignored.

Iraq actually did it better when they invaded Iran in 1980 though the Iraqis lacked the forces to  defeat Iran (also a massive country with bigger population than Iraq and a massive stock of US supplied weapons) and were pushed to the defensive for most of the next 8 years.

The other parallels I'm seeing is the Spanish Civil War where they still didn't understand tactical airpower or infantry-armour-artillery coordination.  Tanks were very badly used in that war whilst airpower was mainly used to bomb civilian towns ala Guernica.  But the Germans did learn a lot though the modern Russians seem to have forgotten everything. 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Young oblivion being a nihilist would agree mutually assured destruction that was the way to go, these days find much more optimistic. Also this is entirely the fault of the United Kingdom at this point, giving Russia 30 days to withdraw their assets from the country rather than freezing them like everyone else is the sole reason why Putin hasn’t already been assassinated at the best of the Russian oligarchs. That, to me at least, would be the best possible outcome. 

 

at the behest sorry and curse whoever invented autocorrect

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel it would take a lot for the oligarchs to turn on Putin, he surely has a lot of dirt on them, and I think they care a whole lot more about public opinion on the world stage than him.

The whole russian strategy has been very puzzling, either Putin tries to control everything and does it badly, or those in charge of the practical application of military-ing are inept. In the long run, I'm sure they can win the battle and take over Ukraine. But I'm not so sure they can keep it. Ukraine is big, and the risk is the Russians will face a 10 year guerilla war. Shitty outcomes all around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, RelentlessOblivion said:

.....this is entirely the fault of the United Kingdom at this point, giving Russia 30 days to withdraw their assets from the country rather than freezing them like everyone else is the sole reason why Putin hasn’t already been assassinated at the best of the Russian oligarchs. That, to me at least, would be the best possible outcome. 

Possibly. I agree with the sentiment. The Tories are deep under the sheets with Russian money.

Although, it takes a while to sell off all your London property. It might bring a crash in the market, which would be cool.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the one hand: NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg stated that "It's only Ukraine and 30 NATO allies that decide when Ukraine is ready to join NATO. Russia has no veto, Russia has no say, and Russia has no right to establish a sphere of influence to try to control their neighbors."

On the other hand, Putin had already stated that Ukraine joining NATO was a redline issue. If you're paranoid and surrounded on one side, you can see the sad logic. If Canada said "we're selling our house to the Chinese and going back to Britain/France" USA wouldn't stand for it either and invade Canada three minutes later.

Putin is an arsehole that does not act in the best interests of his own people but, from his perspective, invasion of Ukraine is logical. Why couldn't he be like the other oligarchs and be content with just robbing his own people blind and buying nice houses in foreign countries? He just had to have the pet project of restoring the glory of Mother Russia. What a dick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Sheol said:

I feel it would take a lot for the oligarchs to turn on Putin, he surely has a lot of dirt on them, and I think they care a whole lot more about public opinion on the world stage than him.

The whole russian strategy has been very puzzling, either Putin tries to control everything and does it badly, or those in charge of the practical application of military-ing are inept. In the long run, I'm sure they can win the battle and take over Ukraine. But I'm not so sure they can keep it. Ukraine is big, and the risk is the Russians will face a 10 year guerilla war. Shitty outcomes all around.

I Think the oligarchs care a lot more about their money then they do anything else, you’re telling me in a world where they lose all access to basically all of their assets and finances not located in Russia it self they don’t turn on poo? Sadly it’s a purely hypothetical scenario thanks impart to the leniency of the UK, and in part due to China stepping up their trade with Russia. The kicker in this scenario is this however Putin is just unstable enough to throw the toys out the cot if, or when, Ukraine doesn’t go his way . Hell we know he targeted Ukraine’s nuclear power plant with artillery in the last day and Russian troops are putting themselves, as well as a significant portion of Eastern Europe, at risk by not letting anyone take care of that mess. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, JonoBlade said:

"Comrade, where did you put the briefcase with the launch codes?!"

"I'm sure they were here a minute ago!"

Is the only thing that saves us.

To be perfectly honest if I was Putin I would be lobbing tactical nukes on airfields and conventional forces concentrated in east right now, given the Russian airforce and army are completely incompetent.  Note these are all legitimate military targets.

 

This would finally create critical air superiority whilst allowing for a eastern forces  to punch through and throw the Ukrainian defence off balance.

 

Also handy warning to NATO.

Western sanctions are irrelevant at this point.  France stated they are waging an economic war whilst Britan admitted the goal was to destroy Putin regime.

 

And as sanctions will continue as long as any Russian troops are in Ukraine including Crime, there is no real downside to nuking key Ukrainian military targets.

 

Speaking from a military perspective of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suspect however that if Russia starts using tactical nukes, NATO will be forced to intervene directly. That would escalate things far more than I think Putin wants. He knows his forces are inferior and would be soundly routed. Better to keep up with the current strategy which is working, if not all that well, than bring the big dogs to the table.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, navybsn said:

I suspect however that if Russia starts using tactical nukes, NATO will be forced to intervene directly. That would escalate things far more than I think Putin wants. He knows his forces are inferior and would be soundly routed. Better to keep up with the current strategy which is working, if not all that well, than bring the big dogs to the table.

Absolutely. Even if Putin is hellbent on this course, he want's as lttle resistance or intervention as possible. Throwing nukes will escalate things to point I don't think he actually desires. And why should he, there's a very low chance Ukranian army will actually win this war, so why risk calling NATO's hand if he doesn't have to? Using nukes is really a one-time card; once played the odds of mutually assured destruction is a lot higher then most people are comfortable with, unless you're one of them strange christians who hope for the Rapture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Sheol said:

I feel it would take a lot for the oligarchs to turn on Putin, he surely has a lot of dirt on them, and I think they care a whole lot more about public opinion on the world stage than him.

The whole russian strategy has been very puzzling, either Putin tries to control everything and does it badly, or those in charge of the practical application of military-ing are inept. In the long run, I'm sure they can win the battle and take over Ukraine. But I'm not so sure they can keep it. Ukraine is big, and the risk is the Russians will face a 10 year guerilla war. Shitty outcomes all around.

It is military incompetence.

 

The Russian military's modernisation is superficial and mainly focused on warmds over Soviet designs and tactical concepts based on fighting significantly inferior opponents.

 

As mentioned Russians failed at literally everything.  I doubt Putin micro managed every blundering batallion, fighter squadron or logistic column or every poorly performing surface to air missile.

 

In essence it seems the Russian military never grew out of its Chechen operations.  The succesful second Chechen War was fought using late WW1 tactiics of ultra heavy firepower to make up for infantry shortfalls and poor tactical competence of maneoivre units ala infantry and tanks).

 

Somehow Russians never got q grasp on logistics.  It has been a often repeated fault in their military since 18th century.

 

The complete lack of air-ground cooperation and combined arms, poor command and control also shows a complete lack of modern warfare.

Eg An American unit in trouble calls in airsupport or artillery supprt on a radio and gets it reasonably quickly and with great precison.

 

A Russian unit on trouble calls no one as they probably don't have a radio in the first place and even if they do, their command and communication structure doesn't allow the troops to call in anything in a timely and useful manner.

 

Eg An American  unit has their own drone and access to many other sensor platforms and well trained recon units.  Russians have their eyes or often extremely limited view from their tank periscopes.

 

Hence we sre seeing a return to bascially WW1 tactics - massive artillery strikes and a slow grind forward.

1 hour ago, navybsn said:

I suspect however that if Russia starts using tactical nukes, NATO will be forced to intervene directly. That would escalate things far more than I think Putin wants. He knows his forces are inferior and would be soundly routed. Better to keep up with the current strategy which is working, if not all that well, than bring the big dogs to the table.

I doubt Nato would intervene especially as Putin has a massive strategic arsenal and NATO would have seen he is willing to use nukes.

 

I actually think the current potentially protracted situation risks Nato intervention even more.  I am seeing a lot of articles on why Nato should go in hard and even one of the Baltic state leaders said NATO should not hqve taken military option away.

 

The longer the conflict the greater chance of wider war.

1 hour ago, Sheol said:

Absolutely. Even if Putin is hellbent on this course, he want's as lttle resistance or intervention as possible. Throwing nukes will escalate things to point I don't think he actually desires. And why should he, there's a very low chance Ukranian army will actually win this war, so why risk calling NATO's hand if he doesn't have to? Using nukes is really a one-time card; once played the odds of mutually assured destruction is a lot higher then most people are comfortable with, unless you're one of them strange christians who hope for the Rapture.

Because losing a big chunk of his conventional army along with a crippled army is bad for his power.

 

Russia has stripped so many units from other sectors to do this that they are in some ways defenceless.

 

And longer the war the greater the chance of regime instability.

Also Ukraine is continuing delivery of large number of Turkish drones ordered before war.  These things  have raped Russian air defences in Syria,  Libya and Armenia.  They are very difficult  to target due to speed, altitude and size.

 

Once these drones are up and running, they will really jacking up Russian casualties and especially that idiotic 64 km long column of Russian vehicles stalled up north due to lack of fuel 

As for nukes there are different types ranging from lower yield tactical to city killer strategic ones.  I would only use tac nukes against military targets 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, JonoBlade said:

On the one hand: NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg stated that "It's only Ukraine and 30 NATO allies that decide when Ukraine is ready to join NATO. Russia has no veto, Russia has no say, and Russia has no right to establish a sphere of influence to try to control their neighbors."

On the other hand, Putin had already stated that Ukraine joining NATO was a redline issue. If you're paranoid and surrounded on one side, you can see the sad logic. If Canada said "we're selling our house to the Chinese and going back to Britain/France" USA wouldn't stand for it either and invade Canada three minutes later.

Putin is an arsehole that does not act in the best interests of his own people but, from his perspective, invasion of Ukraine is logical. Why couldn't he be like the other oligarchs and be content with just robbing his own people blind and buying nice houses in foreign countries? He just had to have the pet project of restoring the glory of Mother Russia. What a dick.

The amount of prominent western diplomats and experts who advised against NATO expansion even in Gorbachev/Yeltsin era is long and illustrious.   It includes people  sucj as Kissunger, Kennan, Gates and even current CIA director William Burns early in his career.

 

NATO evolved into something perverse.  It is no longer a defensive alliance- Kosovo, Libya and actions in Mali, Iraq and elsewhere confirm that.  Even Afghanistan ceased to be a defensive actions decades ago but Nato persisted.

 

It has become an interesting concept whereby US guarantees European experience in exchange for vocal supprot for US actions.

 

By the way US is a total winner in this war:

1. Russia has shot itself in the face and will now face economic pressure if not collapse  and at extreme end dissolution (something many Russians have discussed over years).

 

2. Europe will start reinvesting in own defence BUT with an important caveat: the European rearmament is under  Nato auspices with America as senior partner, not European auspices like proposed by Macron and other pro EU types.

 

3. Eventually Nato gets Ukraine including Crimea (and Georgia) which means Russian access to Black Sea is limited to short stretch of water.  Russian Black Sea Fleet is effectively blockaded at Novorossysk and of no tactical value.  Moscow and other key Russian cities and infrastructure is within short range of even short range stealth fighters which will soon be nuclear capable.

 

So winners/losers:

Winner: USA

 

Losers in order of biggest impact:

Ukrainian pawns...sorry I mean people

Russia

EU

China - weaker or collapsed Russia removes a counter and irritant to USA which can now focus all its attention on China.

 

I do think US has played a long play against Russia - Ukrainian and Georgian Nato membership was announced  in 2007 with much opposition from France and Germany who understood the ramifications.

 

Literally Putin got played and took the bait with greater enthusiasm than expected by anyone else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I got an email from Bandcamp saying it is:

...excited to announce that Bandcamp is joining Epic Games, who you may know as the makers of Fortnite and Unreal Engine, and champions for a fair and open Internet.

-----

Despite my inherent distrust in selling out to bigger players in a market, I guess it is their business that they founded and so can do what they want with it. Just hope that the core platform and purpose does not shift, i.e. providing a direct way to legitimately buy from artists and labels.

In fact, maybe it is an opportunity to broaden the services. What bandcamp lacks is a social media aspect that can effectively do away with me ever having to feel the dirtiness of posting to facebook ever again. I long for the day I can cancel all facebook, instagram and twitter accounts.

An authentic music-centric social media platform seems to be missing in this crazy messed up world. I don't want political shit or inane photos of someone else's holiday, I just want to check in with bands I like and see what they are up to and buy a download or t-shirt from them if I really want to.

The cut that bandcamp makes from sales should be sufficient to support such a service, without having to resort to general advertising*, all the trappings and questionable practice of which have made Facebook the most evil socially disruptive force on the planet.

There was a metal-specific social media platform called Bandbond that surfaced a while ago. But, unfathomably, it was a phone app only - like no web access - WTF. I do most of my messing around and profile viewing on a PC and don't want to be limited to staring at a 5 inch screen.

I tried to sign up for it but bands apparently needed to be vetted before a page could go live. They never replied to the submission form. What seemed like potentially a good idea was implemented in the most retarded way possible.

Bandcamp already has the framework and userbase to give me an alternative that actually promotes value in music.

*although, if it is a band/label that wants to pay for a banner ad to promote a release....that make perfect sense on a music site. It is the insidious targeted *other* shit that is the problem.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, JonoBlade said:

I got an email from Bandcamp saying it is:

...excited to announce that Bandcamp is joining Epic Games, who you may know as the makers of Fortnite and Unreal Engine, and champions for a fair and open Internet.

-----

Despite my inherent distrust in selling out to bigger players in a market, I guess it is their business that they founded and so can do what they want with it. Just hope that the core platform and purpose does not shift, i.e. providing a direct way to legitimately buy from artists and labels.

In fact, maybe it is an opportunity to broaden the services. What bandcamp lacks is a social media aspect that can effectively do away with me ever having to feel the dirtiness of posting to facebook ever again. I long for the day I can cancel all facebook, instagram and twitter accounts.

An authentic music-centric social media platform seems to be missing in this crazy messed up world. I don't want political shit or inane photos of someone else's holiday, I just want to check in with bands I like and see what they are up to and buy a download or t-shirt from them if I really want to.

The cut that bandcamp makes from sales should be sufficient to support such a service, without having to resort to general advertising*, all the trappings and questionable practice of which have made Facebook the most evil socially disruptive force on the planet.

There was a metal-specific social media platform called Bandbond that surfaced a while ago. But, unfathomably, it was a phone app only - like no web access - WTF. I do most of my messing around and profile viewing on a PC and don't want to be limited to staring at a 5 inch screen.

I tried to sign up for it but bands apparently needed to be vetted before a page could go live. They never replied to the submission form. What seemed like potentially a good idea was implemented in the most retarded way possible.

Bandcamp already has the framework and userbase to give me an alternative that actually promotes value in music.

*although, if it is a band/label that wants to pay for a banner ad to promote a release....that make perfect sense on a music site. It is the insidious targeted *other* shit that is the problem.

 

 

 

 

those fortnite metal crossovers are gonna slap 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not a gamer, of course - wrong demographic - and I have no opinion about Epic. It would be a huge shame if Bandcamp turned into a version of Facebook. 'Fair and open internet' reads to me as words I individually understand but put together mean whatever you like, or nothing.

Download and backup your Bandcamp purchases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Join Metal Forum

    joinus-home.jpg

  • Our picks

    • Whichever tier of thrash metal you consigned Sacred Reich back in the 80's/90's they still had their moments.  "Ignorance" & "Surf Nicaragura" did a great job of establishing the band, whereas "The American Way" just got a little to comfortable and accessible (the title track grates nowadays) for my ears.  A couple more records better left forgotten about and then nothing for twenty three years.  2019 alone has now seen three releases from Phil Rind and co.  A live EP, a split EP with Iron Reagan and now a full length.

      Notable addition to the ranks for the current throng of releases is former Machine Head sticksman, Dave McClean.  Love or hate Machine Head, McClean is a more than capable drummer and his presence here is felt from the off with the opening and title track kicking things off with some real gusto.  'Divide & Conquer' and 'Salvation' muddle along nicely, never quite reaching any quality that would make my balls tingle but comfortable enough.  The looming build to 'Manifest Reality' delivers a real punch when the song starts proper.  Frenzied riffs and drums with shots of lead work to hold the interest.


      There's a problem already though (I know, I am such a fucking mood hoover).  I don't like Phil's vocals.  I never had if I am being honest.  The aggression to them seems a little forced even when they are at their best on tracks like 'Manifest Reality'.  When he tries to sing it just feels weak though ('Salvation') and tracks lose real punch.  Give him a riffy number such as 'Killing Machine' and he is fine with the Reich engine (probably a poor choice of phrase) up in sixth gear.  For every thrashy riff there's a fair share of rock edged, local bar act rhythm aplenty too.

      Let's not poo-poo proceedings though, because overall I actually enjoy "Awakening".  It is stacked full of catchy riffs that are sticky on the old ears.  Whilst not as raw as perhaps the - brilliant - artwork suggests with its black and white, tattoo flash sheet style design it is enjoyable enough.  Yes, 'Death Valley' & 'Something to Believe' have no place here, saved only by Arnett and Radziwill's lead work but 'Revolution' is a fucking 80's thrash heyday throwback to the extent that if you turn the TV on during it you might catch a new episode of Cheers!

      3/5
      • Reputation Points

      • 10 replies
    • I
      • Reputation Points

      • 2 replies
    • https://www.metalforum.com/blogs/entry/52-vltimas-something-wicked-marches-in/
      • Reputation Points

      • 3 replies

    • https://www.metalforum.com/blogs/entry/48-candlemass-the-door-to-doom/
      • Reputation Points

      • 2 replies
    • Full length number 19 from overkill certainly makes a splash in the energy stakes, I mean there's some modern thrash bands that are a good two decades younger than Overkill who can only hope to achieve the levels of spunk that New Jersey's finest produce here.  That in itself is an achievement, for a band of Overkill's stature and reputation to be able to still sound relevant four decades into their career is no mean feat.  Even in the albums weaker moments it never gets redundant and the energy levels remain high.  There's a real sense of a band in a state of some renewed vigour, helped in no small part by the addition of Jason Bittner on drums.  The former Flotsam & Jetsam skinsman is nothing short of superb throughout "The Wings of War" and seems to have squeezed a little extra out of the rest of his peers.

      The album kicks of with a great build to opening track "Last Man Standing" and for the first 4 tracks of the album the Overkill crew stomp, bash and groove their way to a solid level of consistency.  The lead work is of particular note and Blitz sounds as sneery and scathing as ever.  The album is well produced and mixed too with all parts of the thrash machine audible as the five piece hammer away at your skull with the usual blend of chugging riffs and infectious anthems.  


      There are weak moments as mentioned but they are more a victim of how good the strong tracks are.  In it's own right "Distortion" is a solid enough - if not slightly varied a journey from the last offering - but it just doesn't stand up well against a "Bat Shit Crazy" or a "Head of a Pin".  As the album draws to a close you get the increasing impression that the last few tracks are rescued really by some great solos and stomping skin work which is a shame because trimming of a couple of tracks may have made this less obvious. 

      4/5
      • Reputation Points

      • 4 replies
×
×
  • Create New...