. - Page 3

Abzu · Post by **Abzu** » 25 Feb 2010, 09:24

[quote name="sworn"]No, this was not directed at any one individual. If religion as whole to you has no value, fine. That's your choice. Essentially there are two options. A, you're right. And B, you're wrong.[/quote]

Agreed!

[quote name="sworn"]If you're right then after you're gone you have nothing to worry about for eternity, and should find solace in the here-and-now that you are one of the few that are enlightened enough to look beyond religion. If you're wrong, well, depending then on "who" is right, you will have varying levels of consequence to face.[/quote]

I'm good with that.

[quote name="sworn"]My point here is this. You sound utterly convinced that "A" is the truth, ( ie, that you are right, and "all religion is a crock") That being the case, why do you care if someone else disagrees with you? Most people who are of a certain faith, whatever that may be, "do care" if you believe what they do since they believe in an afterlife, and want as many people as possible to enjoy it with them. But, if you feel that there is nothing after death, and all that matters is the here-and-now, then why do you care how someone else spends the here-and-now? If being a Christian, a Satanist, a Zoroastrian, a Hindu or whatever makes someone happy now, then why do you care?

I hope that I am wrong here, but I can already see some snide crude remark to answer this question... I'm not trying to convert you to any religion (I don't practice any either), nor am I trying to be a dick, so don't be defensive on this, but honestly ask yourself "why do I care so much about if other people follow a religion or not?"[/quote]

I am utterly convinced. Until I observe scientifically verifiable proof otherwise, I will remain utterly convinced. You (and Tam, for that matter) seem to keep falling into the misconception that I get all in a twist about the beliefs of others. I've already said this is not the case. I comment on it when it is mentioned as I would anything else I have a viewpoint on.

[quote name="sworn"]Now, next to politics, religion is an awful topic to discuss for many reasons. But, it can also be the most fruitful if both sides show respect and decency to the other.

I happen to agree with you partially. I feel that organized religion at least is often times negative, but that at times it has its place. I don't feel that the universe appeared out of nowhere, and that all matter within it has always existed, it just makes no sense... but I also feel that are minds (we use less than 8% of them) are nowhere capable of ever understanding such a complex issue as this. Therefore it is easy to apply the unknowns to a deity, since that explains them. On the other hand, everything has too much order and unison to be just a mistake, or coincidence.[/quote]

What was it you think makes no sense... the notion that it just appeared or that it has always existed? Cosmology is a wonderful topic of discussion. I would comment on your 8% statement, but I see it has already been addressed.

Mistake and coincidence is the wrong assumption, one often used by creationists to somehow prove their belief -- If not design, then is must be chance! No, things are as ordered as they are because they could not be any other way; it is neither design nor chance, but rather natural selection.

[quote name="sworn"]The bottom line is that nobody really knows anything absolutely. Religious peoples have blind faith that God exists, you have blind faith that he does not. The definition of a religion is "something that one believes in and follows devotedly." So, Atheists, whether they like it or not, are just as "religious" in that regard as a God-fearing Catholic.[/quote]

It is not blind faith to require proof. In fact, it is just the opposite. The notion that atheists are religiously atheistic is also inherently flawed for that same reason. If a god undeniably appears and proves itself, (real) atheists would observe, verify and agree that this is a truth, whereas creationists have a historically consistent and sharp tendency to deny scientific proof of things that refute their relevant religious views.

[quote name="sworn"]To be so antagonistic towards religions shows more-so a psychological battle that is yet resolved within you. I, I could care less what anyone believes. But I would never overtly offend anyone based on their personal choices in their own life. Perhaps I am wrong on your intentions, but when you listed a line of religions and had some uniquely offensive way of saying that they are incorrect, that shows clearly: not that you have no religious beliefs, but rather that you feel in some way threatened by them. Much like how one who is overtly racist refers to certain peoples as n*ggers, wet-backs, k*kes, etc,.. is really just threatened by them, and is not comfortable with themselves and who they are.[/quote]

You're barking up a tree that does not exist. There is absolutely no conflict within me on this matter. To suggest that whatever level of antagonism I may convey in the matter is indicative of some psychological conflict is just plain ignorant of psychology.

[quote name="sworn"]
[quote name="desolation"]I respect Richard as a musician. I don't know him on a personal level, but I'd probably get along with him. (I do not only associate with other atheists.) However, when it is said that someone is of any faith, I will laugh. It matters not who it is. It does not lessen any other aspect of them to me, but other aspects of them do not prevent me from commenting on what I comment on. [/quote]

Stop caring so much if other people find peace in whatever religion they want. If all that matters to you is this life, why waste yours expending so much energy on what everyone else is doing? Just food for thought, not trying to attack you, so don't get overly defensive, I'm just hoping that you'll pick up a more laissez faire attitude about other people's religious beliefs.[/quote]

Stop assuming false motivations on the other side that are most convenient to your argument without any solid basis. It is poor form, sir.

TamPron · Post by **TamPron** » 25 Feb 2010, 10:59

Prince William & Aaron Carter are boyfriends.

sworn · Post by **sworn** » 26 Feb 2010, 07:07

[quote name="desolation"]

What was it you think makes no sense... the notion that it just appeared or that it has always existed? Cosmology is a wonderful topic of discussion. I would comment on your 8% statement, but I see it has already been addressed. [/quote]

That it just appeared. If you leave nothingness alone, it cannot produce somethingness, it will just be perpetual nothingness. That being said, that means that all matter has a beginning, a starting point chronologically. Now, scientists state that all of the matter in the universe was at one point in time compressed into a state smaller than atom. Then it exploded. There is solid cosmological proof that the first event in the history of the universe was an intense flash of bright light as the big-bang occurred.

The Big Question: What acted on this "compressed matter" if "everything" was within it?

Not easy to answer. Many scientists are, in essence a theist. In that they personally believe that there was some entity, if you will, that acted on the compressed matter. They do not, as a whole however believe that this is entity was "God" as we classify him, but rather something that understood the consequences of the action, and was in some way outside of "everything." Steven Hawkings has written a good deal on this, as well as others. Even devout atheists like Bill Maher who has always professed that "religion is just silly" and that "there is no divine being floating around in the sky that watches everything that I do, and cares about me personally", but he has admitted that "I'm not an atheist. There's a really big difference between an atheist and someone who just doesn't believe in religion. Religion to me is a bureaucracy between man and God that I don't need. But I'm not an atheist, no. I believe there's some force. If you want to call it God... I don't believe God is a single parent who writes books!"

Another interesting fact is this:

The odd parallel between how science explains the processes of the universe, and that of Genesis. Now as I stated before, I am not any religion but like to think that I am as open-minded as I can be. That being said....

1. In Genesis what is the first thing that God says? "Let there be light.", and according to scientists that was the first event.

2. The next "day" he separates the land and sky. Scientists say that the matter after circulating around, and bouncing into each other eventually collected into masses, and some of these became stars, and planets, and after producing so much mass their gravitational pull was so strong that then you have solar systems, etc...

3. The next "day" water from land is separated. This is the next major step here on Earth, as an atmosphere is produced and water collects in the lowest elevations thereby making oceans, rivers, etc...

4. The next "day" creatures in the sea are made. The next major step according to scientists is the beginning of life which was in the oceans.

5. The next "day" land creatures and those of the sky. The next major step in evolution is the water creatures coming onto dry land, and some grow wings. Think dinosaurs here as well.

6. The next "day" God creates man. In evolution, Homo Sapiens appear after major evolutionary changes from primates.

Just interesting I think. I mean is this progression of life and all matter so obvious that uneducated peoples in the ancient Middle East just happened to be right? I don't know. This is something that always keeps me somewhat iffy about totally dismissing the Judeo/Christian faith entirely. Could be coincidence, or maybe as I said, that progression is just very obvious, but I don't think it is "that" obvious.

Now obviously, certain denominations of Christianity take everything totally literal, and say that Genesis refers to a literal 24-hour day.... that's ridiculous in my opinion. I say, that "if" the Judeo-Christian account is correct then "day" is just a great analogy to use, especially when those that thousands of years ago were attesting this account were primarily farmers, and their lives were totally controlled by the cycle of the day. It makes it easy for them to relate that "their" god, is, in a way a farmer also.

"Day" really is referring to a major epoch consisting of millions of years, not 24 hours.

[quote name="desolation"]

Mistake and coincidence is the wrong assumption, one often used by creationists to somehow prove their belief -- If not design, then is must be chance! No, things are as ordered as they are because they could not be any other way; it is neither design nor chance, but rather natural selection.[/quote]

A good point, but I'm not sure if it allows all the dots to connect. Then again, maybe we can never connect them all. What I think about this is: Yes, natural selection has governed everything during the life of the universe, as to what survives and what does not. But what about their absolute beginning? What triggered the beginning of "life" as we know it? I mean, there were elements and compounds floating around, and massive planets and solar systems, and then an atmosphere here on Earth... what triggered life? How can life come from non-life? And once it does, how can it automatically sustain itself, reproduce itself, and make itself more advanced???

Now here is where it is easy to say, "well God did it." An easy out, yeah, but really... It is so mind-boggling to try to understand how else... I hate to admit it, trust me I do, but this makes me think that there is something else there...

[quote name="desolation"]

Stop assuming false motivations on the other side that are most convenient to your argument without any solid basis. It is poor form, sir.[/quote]

Sorry if I have.

bob_here · Post by **bob_here** » 26 Feb 2010, 08:00

[quote name="sworn"]
[quote name="desolation"]

What was it you think makes no sense... the notion that it just appeared or that it has always existed? Cosmology is a wonderful topic of discussion. I would comment on your 8% statement, but I see it has already been addressed. [/quote]

That it just appeared. If you leave nothingness alone, it cannot produce somethingness, it will just be perpetual nothingness. That being said, that means that all matter has a beginning, a starting point chronologically. Now, scientists state that all of the matter in the universe was at one point in time compressed into a state smaller than atom. Then it exploded. There is solid cosmological proof that the first event in the history of the universe was an intense flash of bright light as the big-bang occurred. [/quote]

I've written a lot about cosmology, existentialism (new forms of it), etc but I've never published anything... It really is something that's fascinating and also mind melting.

I've found that there are always two issues with this topic.

1. Defining "nothingness"

2. Then thru that definition, defining a physical reality that is apart from our own.

Number 2 is a main concern for me. Why? Because cosmology is always addressed from our fixed viewpoint of what physical reality is. What's one of the most popular ontological arguments out there? The watchmaker one. You know, "a watch exists because the watchmaker created it so it must be so with our universe and reality."

I maintain that, that is the fallacy. Since in our instance of physical reality; of form, we attribute the processes of our physical reality to what was 'before' and is 'after' our reality. I postulate that is the error. We have, because there is no choice in the matter, our fixed viewpoint in the mechanics of reality so in it we attribute "origin", "creation", "starts", "endings", "things", "nothingness", "somethingness", etc, etc...

Based on this fallacy, I thought the only way to define "nothingness" is within the antipodal of how we define it in our reality. Since in our reality, "nothingness" signifies devoid of something, the break from that would actually be that "nothingness" in the grand scheme (even though there is no 'scheme' when nothingness is in and of itself) is actually everything at once when it is not. So in the state (even though it is not a state) of nothingness, it's everything without perception, form, structure, beginning or end. Therefore "it" does not get created or destroyed. It has no origin or end, only 'its' variations of form. Right now, "human" is the form. Within that however are the origins of origin, end, creation, etc. In a word, the perception of "things". Mind you, "perception" too is a type of variation of form. Our reality is in fact very real, however for this state of form. Our reality always exists as long as we do. "We" could be somethign else in the distant future and along with that other "we", could be another variation of the form of perception which may allow the "somethingness" of itself i.e the being, reflect even closer on the true nature of its existence. Perhaps even realize that its reality is not attributable to understanding anything 'outside' of what is apparently real.

Creationism is a fallacy because it does not address itself. To use an ultimate source to define it then, either attributes all else about our reality (in other words, that source must have an origin and end) to that source and consequently ablates that very meaning then.

It always irks me that ultimately the brain is "used" about 8 - 10%. So looking at most explanations of our origins I tend to cringe remembering that how could a small percentage of something understand itself 100%?? Even to destroy my own theories I ask a simple question:

Do I understand enough to understand that I can't understand enough to understand that I understand completely?

Godsdefeat · Post by **Godsdefeat** » 26 Feb 2010, 12:31

zim · Post by **zim** » 26 Feb 2010, 17:37

Surely you can't be serious!

I am serious... and don't call me Shirley.

Abzu · Post by **Abzu** » 26 Feb 2010, 17:59

I could sit here and spend hours on each point you made, refuting it with scientific findings from physics to biology to tectonics, but instead will sard and save time. Go pick up The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins (or any of his other books, for that matter).

Spirits of the Deep Waters · 28 Feb 2010, 17:00

deep discussions on the internet = azm

or not

Richard Brunelle · Post by **Richard Brunelle** » 21 Apr 2010, 00:49

Hello everyone, I am sorry I have not been on here lately, I am currently going to college for engineering and I have very little free time. I will try to get back here a little more often. I have noticed a lot of comments about my religion. My response it is not that really much of a big deal to me. I am both evil and good. I am the ying and the yang. Somedays I feel satanic some days I feel christian. I found the best way for me is to not have any one thing have power over me. I am done with the Lady Gaga thing. I just thought she was hot, but now I am bored with her. So I am back to being a metal head. For all who say that first he is one way then another. So what! Anybody can be whoever they want whenever they want as long as you don't preach to me. I have gone through a lot since my Morbid days and not a day goes by where I feel bad about not being in Morbid Angel anymore. I wish I could to a small tour with them again. Anyways thanks for remembering that I am still alive.

Richard

Mutilator · Post by **Mutilator** » 21 Apr 2010, 03:18

Welcome Richard,

I am also one of the hordes that worships Altars of madness and Blessed are the sick.

I think your playing on those albums is really in balance with Trey's. I understand these hard times have forced you to quit Morbid Angel back then, not a lack of playing skills like some stories tell.

Can you tell us something about the recordings from those first 2 albums?

From what I've read Pete Sandoval was really concerned about you back in the day. Why not check up on him? He might like this since he is now into backsurgery and can't contribute drums for the upcoming album.

Abzu · Post by **Abzu** » 21 Apr 2010, 08:13

I would love to hear about your time in MA, duder!

Hugo. · Post by **Hugo.** » 26 Apr 2010, 19:13

[quote name="Mutilator"]

I think your playing on those albums is really in balance with Trey's. [/quote]

I agree wholeheartedly with this. Richard's leads had a more human characyeristic which balanced the total insanity of Trey perfectly.

Richards lead in Chapel of ghouls never fails to send shivers down my spine.

captainshanks · Post by **captainshanks** » 07 Jun 2010, 13:13

[quote name="Richard Brunelle"]Hello everyone, I am sorry I have not been on here lately, I am currently going to college for engineering and I have very little free time. I will try to get back here a little more often. I have noticed a lot of comments about my religion. My response it is not that really much of a big deal to me. I am both evil and good. I am the ying and the yang. Somedays I feel satanic some days I feel christian. I found the best way for me is to not have any one thing have power over me. I am done with the Lady Gaga thing. I just thought she was hot, but now I am bored with her. So I am back to being a metal head. For all who say that first he is one way then another. So what! Anybody can be whoever they want whenever they want as long as you don't preach to me. I have gone through a lot since my Morbid days and not a day goes by where I feel bad about not being in Morbid Angel anymore. I wish I could to a small tour with them again. Anyways thanks for remembering that I am still alive.

Richard[/quote]

But lady gaga is a metalhead her dj played the earache xmas party.

Richard Brunelle · Post by **Richard Brunelle** » 07 Jun 2010, 22:03

Lady Gaga is a metalhead awesome.

Anjel · Post by **Anjel** » 07 Jun 2010, 23:12

Richard.

I love that first solo in Maze of Torment that you did.

Also, a suggestion for your website, you could code all parts with divs instead of tables. I think that works way better. It looks pretty good though.

Grudge · Post by **Grudge** » 08 Jun 2010, 03:22

[quote name="Richard Brunelle"]Lady Gaga is a metalhead awesome.[/quote]

What's your favorite Lady Gaga song? Bad Romance? I think that song is interesting.

captain twat. IV. · Post by **captain twat. IV.** » 08 Jun 2010, 05:49

What is with this Lady Gaga fasination everyone has?She is an absolute waste of talent as far as I can see.It must be great knowing the only way you can achieve fame (lame) is to pretend to be somebody else!

Richard Brunelle · Post by **Richard Brunelle** » 09 Jun 2010, 23:30

MY favorite Lady Gaga song is Bad Romance. I think she is very creative. Everyone of her videos is like a short movie. I think she is very talented. But it is a conflict of interest to be a metal head a like Lady Gaga at the same time. You know who I really like these days is Mushroomhead. That are totally insane.

http://www.richardbrunelle.com

Richard Brunelle · Post by **Richard Brunelle** » 09 Jun 2010, 23:34

[quote name="Anjel"]Richard.

I love that first solo in Maze of Torment that you did.

Also, a suggestion for your website, you could code all parts with divs instead of tables. I think that works way better. It looks pretty good though.[/quote]

Thanks for saying my website looks pretty good, I appreciate that. Yes I know about divs. As a matter of fact I had to do that on my contact page, The tables were screwing up the validation. I really do need to update my whole website and use divs, but that will take awhile.

Thanks for loving my first solo in Maze of Torment.

Richard Brunelle · Post by **Richard Brunelle** » 09 Jun 2010, 23:36

[quote name="Zajebiste!"]
[quote name="Mutilator"]

I think your playing on those albums is really in balance with Trey's. [/quote]

I agree wholeheartedly with this. Richard's leads had a more human characyeristic which balanced the total insanity of Trey perfectly.

Richards lead in Chapel of ghouls never fails to send shivers down my spine.

[/quote]

That's totally awesome thanks for the support!

Richard Brunelle · Post by **Richard Brunelle** » 09 Jun 2010, 23:40

[quote name="Uros"]Im also curious about the transition from a hard-on bearer who says "no God stands before me" to a Bible abiding person. I mean, that's just drastic.

[/quote]

What's to be curious about. I never said I was a bible abiding person. Please find one quote where I said this. I don't have the same beliefs as I had back in the day. But I am still an evil M. F.

Richard Brunelle · Post by **Richard Brunelle** » 09 Jun 2010, 23:42

[quote name="Zajebiste!"]I missed the whole dealio with brunelle here. Him and trey are the best combo in my eyes. Brunelle's solos rip.[/quote]

Thank you so much!

Richard Brunelle · Post by **Richard Brunelle** » 09 Jun 2010, 23:46

[quote name="desolation"]I would love to hear about your time in MA, duder!

[/quote]

One of the best memories I have of Morbid Angel is when Trey and I went out the night before a show, and collected night crawlers. Trey gathered about 20 or 30 earth worms. During the show the next day he put them in his my chewed them up and spit them out.

Ninny · Post by **Ninny** » 12 Jun 2010, 17:02

[quote name="ANGEL OF DESEASE"]

Richard Brunelle[/quote]

Thanks for visiting us here Richard. You created a bit of magic with those first two Morbid Angel albums.

Richard Brunelle · Post by **Richard Brunelle** » 19 Jun 2010, 09:57

I am starting a new band and I am auditioning vocalists, bass players, drummers, a second guitarist, and keyboards. I have posted the music for the first songs for my new project on my website. http://www.richardbrunelle.com

TamPron · Post by **TamPron** » 19 Jun 2010, 13:49

First off, you look like Steven Seagal in the pic on the music page, and that is awesome.

second, I really enjoyed those tracks, and thought the ending to awakening was really cool, and I would encourage more of that in your future writings. Awakening also a cool kinda Priest vibe, I dig it.

If it were possible for me to join a band in Florida, I would like to inquire about an audition, but, I don't see that happening. Good luck with continuing the writing & finding members.

Keep us posted!

Anjel · Post by **Anjel** » 19 Jun 2010, 17:33

If I only lived in the US...

Abzu · Post by **Abzu** » 19 Jun 2010, 22:02

Do we have any musically inclined Floridian MABBsters?

Richard Brunelle · Post by **Richard Brunelle** » 19 Jun 2010, 23:45

Thank you so much for the positive feedback. I am truly motivated and more songs will come soon. If I can't find a vocalist soon I may just doctor up my voice with a bunch of production and through down some tracks.

Anjel · Post by **Anjel** » 20 Jun 2010, 03:34

I read somewhere that you could do vocals, I think it was Mike Browning who said it in an interview or something, I think he said that you couldn't sing and play guitar at the same time though.

Grudge · Post by **Grudge** » 21 Jun 2010, 02:27

awakening sounds great! I can feel it has the potential to be a hit metal track

Richard Brunelle · Post by **Richard Brunelle** » 21 Jun 2010, 02:43

[quote name="Anjel"]I read somewhere that you could do vocals, I think it was Mike Browning who said it in an interview or something, I think he said that you couldn't sing and play guitar at the same time though.[/quote]

I do have trouble singing and playing guitar at the same time, I can play and sing if I practice enough, I think could manage it. But the main problem is I am really not very good at singing. I might do some vocals for now just to fill the empty spaces in my songs, but I would doctor them up and never be able to do it live.

Richard Brunelle · Post by **Richard Brunelle** » 21 Jun 2010, 02:44

[quote name="IRONMAN"]awakening sounds great! I can feel it has the potential to be a hit metal track[/quote]

Thank so much I really appreciate that. I will work as hard as possible to create enough music for a full length cd

Richard Brunelle · Post by **Richard Brunelle** » 21 Jun 2010, 02:45

My new music project.

http://www.richardbrunelle.com

vO)))id · Post by **vO)))id** » 21 Jun 2010, 05:09

I dropped into this thread just now (and for the record, I haven't deleted ANY of Richard's previous posts simple because I haven't been around).

Welcome to the forum Richard! It's great to have you here.

I didn't read all the previous posts by all the other members, simply because I can't be arsed.

Have a nice stay here, goodluck with everything you're doing and thanks for all the great things you have done with Morbid Angel!

oh and about Lady Gaga; I think she's a breath of fresh air in the pop industry (image-wise), although I don't really like any of her songs.

Richard Brunelle · Post by **Richard Brunelle** » 21 Jun 2010, 05:18

Has someone been deleting my posts?

vO)))id · Post by **vO)))id** » 21 Jun 2010, 05:23

Somewhere on the first or second page somebody mentioned it. He thought one of your posts had been deleted but it might have been an error in the message board. I'm the moderator of the Morbid Angel section, together with the admins ofcourse, and I didn't delete any of your posts, or any other's.

captain twat. IV. · Post by **captain twat. IV.** » 21 Jun 2010, 13:12

I think he was referring to the change in his posts...As in how certain words or phrases get changed.C at is changed to dog ect.

The music isn't really to my liking but good luck with it.

Lady Gaga has you all brainwashed

vO)))id · Post by **vO)))id** » 21 Jun 2010, 13:36

Here:

[quote name="Jackson"]Hey moderator,why did you delete Richard's post?[/quote]

And here:

[quote name="Jackson"]

Good job,moderators.

[/quote]

I didn't delete anything.

zim · Post by **zim** » 21 Jun 2010, 13:52

Someone could have thought he wasn't the real Richard.

Richard Brunelle · Post by **Richard Brunelle** » 21 Jun 2010, 22:54

[quote name="mabb_"]I think he was referring to the change in his posts...As in how certain words or phrases get changed.C at is changed to dog ect.

The music isn't really to my liking but good luck with it.

Lady Gaga has you all brainwashed[/quote]

Yes I remember, I was typing in certain words and they would appear as different words.

As far as the music goes I appreciate you giving it a listen, and being honest with your opinion. I am in the early stages of writing. As time goes on I will get bet better. I plan on trying to write a death metal song next.

Anjel · Post by **Anjel** » 21 Jun 2010, 23:25

More acoustic stuff would be cool too. I just bought a classic guitar and I'm trying to learn to play Desolate Ways.

Richard Brunelle · Post by **Richard Brunelle** » 21 Jun 2010, 23:41

Would you believe I don't own an acoustic guitar. I have not been playing guitar for many years and I am now just getting back into it. This fall I am going to buy an acoustic guitar. Thanks for giving Desolate Ways a go, should not be too hard to learn.

Abzu · Post by **Abzu** » 22 Jun 2010, 02:00

Desolate Ways is the first thing I play nearly every time I pick up an acoustic guitar.

vO)))id · Post by **vO)))id** » 22 Jun 2010, 02:19

[quote name="desolation"]Desolate Ways is the first thing I play nearly every time I pick up an acoustic guitar.

[/quote]

haha, same here!

Verbal · Post by **Verbal** » 22 Jun 2010, 02:22

snap, although i dont pick up guitar much

you are a great man, richard, for this

Haunty · Post by **Haunty** » 22 Jun 2010, 05:34

[quote name="Void"]
[quote name="desolation"]Desolate Ways is the first thing I play nearly every time I pick up an acoustic guitar.

[/quote]

haha, same here![/quote]

So do I. Except when I play the beginning to Black Star by Yngwie Malmsteen. But mostly desolate ways.

Abzu · Post by **Abzu** » 22 Jun 2010, 09:21

Richard Brunelle · Post by **Richard Brunelle** » 22 Jun 2010, 11:22

I am truly honored that Desolate Ways is amongst the songs you play. Thank you!

I started my first death metal song. It is not complete but it is a small taste.

Reign of Chaos

http://www.richardbrunelle.com

jawn galliano · Post by **jawn galliano** » 22 Jun 2010, 12:18

[quote name="zimberly"]Someone could have thought he wasn't the real Richard.[/quote]

nobody has deleted any post in this thread at any time