thepinkbunnyofdoom
on a feeling by i_am_the_popsicle
2 Apr 2005, 2:04 AM
"the only thing better than being an understood prophet
is being a misunderstood one"
Good lines. Most of the rest has no real depth, and isn't all that inticing. -5- because it better than most of what I've read tonight.
<3 Jason
Heaven Help Us, poetry about Instant Messaging. Like what a totally incredibly rad awesome amazing Idea! What's next, poems about blogs and cell phone text? This reeks of Jr. High School. Good feelings to have and all, but crap for verse. -3- Because its at least poetic, somewhat, by a stretch.
<3 Jason
Potential, but I doubt this took you more than 20 minutes to write. The first few lines are drab. The last 2 are great images, but don't run off the tongue like they should. Read a little more poetry, then rewrite this. -5-
Lose alot of the spacing, and give this a little bit of rewriting. Mainly the last line. "Brick wall, Brick wall, I should've kept my pace," would probably sit better as two lines, instead on one. -6-
More of a rant than anything.
Thanks for the blog update. Would it kill you to use a metaphor, turn a phrase, a simile, an alliteration, or even just your imagination? Thank god it doesn't rhyme every line or other, but without even that thin excuse, this isn't a poem. There is no art here. So no vote.
V4 L5 "Willow Hair". Good use of the word urticant. Although with the help of translation 3, I couldn't help but think crabs.
Your use of diapason just seems wrong to me. At first I thought it was a typo, but after a second glance, I got curious. Was there a reason for diapason, as opposed, to anything else meaning the full range? Not that it matters, but I just thought it an ill chosen word. -9-
<3 Jason
sigh... that moment's bliss.
i hope not dovina ; P
i know the feeling.well penned!
?
To dirty hippy, some time when I was still young :(
If arguing that which you hold to be true as wrong is the same as arguing the conviction of open-mindedness and you accept that arguing that which you know to be true as false is required or else one is closed-minded then arguing the truth about open-mindedness is itself closed-minded.
Pardon me, I'm doing two things at once - some mending with needle and thread as my grandmother taught, and arguing about the entrance of propositions into a minds and inhibitions to such entrances. If I mix the two you will try to understand. Somewhere in the process I seem to have lost where I said the thing you claim that I said.
This can be attacked from two positions. (i) you can not hold truth with no conviction to identify it (ii) you can not judge the falsity of a statement without first accepting valid criteria to judge it by.
To recap. This all started when you claimed any belief as to the workings of the world is not open-minded and inhibits the *-ingestion-* of truth.
To be open minded is, as you say yourself, to be willing to argue that that which you hold to be true is wrong, thereby being willing to change your beliefs. That's the tizzy I am in. And saying I am in a tizzy is another platitude.
only thickies don't understand irony.
How do you determine the criteria to test the falsity of a proposition. How do you determine the criteria to pick a good criteria.
To argue with any conviction the case for open-mindedness is a contradiction. It is like arguing that which you hold to be true is wrong. Now we have you in such a tizzy can you think of a single statement that is not a platitude under your recently acquired definition of platitude.