urban ftw.

I think that's spirituality
 

I think doing something spiritual would b classified as anything that nurtures your own individual spirit, and makes u who u are. I would say anything that has a deep meaning to u is spiritual, so if listening to music, or thinking about politics or religion has deep meaning to u, then I would consider it spiritual. I rarely if ever go to church, but I consider myself very spiritual. Also, I found it strange that u said, 'I spend a lot of time thinking about religion,' and it has nothing to do w/ spirituality?

By thinking of religion I mean more so the effects it has on society, the way it plays into politics and why the human mind would want something such as religion to be involved with its thought process. I don't see any logical reason to believe spirits exist.

[/QUOTE]

That's cool. I don't want to push my ideas on everyone. I just feel it's the perfect antidote to our caffeine & convenience loving, quick-fix society. IMO, it's the ultimate way of saying F/O to the world. Sometimes, being very outwardly rebellious can be setting yourself up for a relationship w/ that world, not to say anything about u personally. In observing people, I hav noticed a lot of people go from one extreme to the next. I like being on a pretty even keel.

I never hugely got into them myself. I can appreciate why so many people love them and equally detest them. They've almost become a bit of a parody in one sense, in that they have become so popular with their NIN logo which is massively overused on black T-shirts. Eeew ;)

'Closer' and 'Dead Souls' are LUSH.

PLEASE DO NOT MAKE UP STATISTICS THAT YOU BASE YOUR ENTIRE ARGUMENT ON. It's a gadfly and does no good to anyone. Maybe all caps wasn't necessary, but I find it irksome enough that when asked in English to write a paper about what you find disturbing about the world, I wrote about false statistics that people make up to make a point to their weak argument, and how their are actually people in the world dumb enough to believe them.



That's cool. I don't want to push my ideas on everyone. I just feel it's the perfect antidote to our caffeine & convenience loving, quick-fix society. IMO, it's the ultimate way of saying F/O to the world. Sometimes, being very outwardly rebellious can be setting yourself up for a relationship w/ that world, not to say anything about u personally. In observing people, I hav noticed a lot of people go from one extreme to the next. I like being on a pretty even keel.[/quote]

I see where your comming from,(I recently had to cut caffeine and most overly processed foods from my diet). But I found Orangena,French Lemonade, and Pomgrand a good replacement for the caffeine. To stay mentally balanced I have found that reading Seed/Wired/Magnet are good, mentally stimulating magazines, and actually doing something productive with my mind keeps more stable than doing nothing with it.

Well... you didn't read my post. I started by saying, "even though I agree that few people will end up liking Tool much". That is to say, even if they do give them a fair listen, most'll probably end up not liking them too much because of other reasons stated.

My point was largely incidental; it was not related to the argument. And it is simply that most of those who attack Tool (and ANY OTHER BAND, for that matter) have generally never given that band's whole discography a fair go. It makes sense, as there is only so much time available to each individual, but nevertheless, it is true. And that goes for whether or not they'd ultimately end up liking the band, had they bothered; that much, there's no way of telling.

Whether they have the time or not, its ridiculous to make someone listen to a bands entire discography if they don't like what they've heard just to satisfy a tool fan. Then again it probably won't satisfy them they'll bust out the "you just don't get it" argument.

Well I agree, of course it would be unfair to apply that criteria for Tool specifically. I'm suggesting that the principle holds for all bands. I think it's unfair to form a negative opinion of any band at all without having listened to at least 70% or so of their material attentively. Otherwise how can one truly know? (It'd be pretty lame for instance to reject Tool based simply on listening to the Opiate EP or even Undertow, while they ended up so markedly different down the line)

And yeah, I think that a huge amount of incidents of bands being rejected tends to happen either through a negative approach from the onset, or just not bothering to really get to know them. Of course, as said before, that's not to say that the end result would be any different. And a "you just don't get it" response is pretty lame, as you say.

Does that mean you listen to 70% of everything that ever comes out?