Would you consider yourself an agnostic with regard to the proposition that there exists an undetectable nob protruding from your forehead?

I really meant she shakes like the noun cream - which, I believe, shakes differently from water, juice, or Fanta. Not to mention that it shakes into milkshakes. Which of the following associations would you guess I'm trying to make: a) The narrator has just discovered he's gay, or b) The narrator has just discovered he has an abnormally large circumsized cock? I have to say, though I'm rooting for b), I suspect a).

1) Would you say that if people stopped believing in God, He'd stop existing? 2) Would you say that if everybody started believing in a new kind of supreme being (one called "Zchtfv", maybe), He would start to exist? 3) I didn't say anything of the kind. I know this isn't a question. 4) Are you familiar with the reasoning that goes: If I believe in God and God exists, then I go to heaven; If I don't believe in God and God exists, I'm pretty much fucked; If I believe in God and God doesn't exist, I'm no worse off; If I don't believe in God and God doesn't exist, I'm no worse off; So, logically, it's safer (ie, better) to believe in God than to not believe. ?

"I can only speak from a sexual position" - Dovina

Incidentally 1) If you weren't proven right by either yourself or others, would your brain explode? 2) Plenty of people have the ability to label things truths or falsehoods, especially when discussing things in whose creation God was pretty much uninvolved - like English use or the specialized jargon of philosophy. In fact, it's possible that an educated human is more qualified to call poor English or Philosophy-lingo use "bollocks" than God. Particularly given the likelihood that if God called something other than real bollocks bollocks, he'd either vanish in a puff of trump or the thing discussed would instantly change into a real and perfect bunch of bollocks. Neither of which, I think you'll agree, is something any of us want to see in our lifetimes. 3) Oh, sorry. You were being sarcastic. Then your comment simply doesn't make any sense. 4) I'm self-righteous about English use, which happens to be the subject at hand and something I've spent the last god-knows-how-many years getting a very specialized education in order to discuss accurately. By the way, I don't think you know what self-righteous really means. The real slur was "snit" - for which, I see, you've got no answer :-( 5) I spent 1,000 comments trying to make this site - or at least the spelling and poetry writing aspects of it - more adult. Give it about five shots and you'll see what I'm talking about.

a) populous b) populace Without checking, which of the above is an adjective? Just curious. I'll know if you checked.

For the record, that's the most preposterous of your many preposterous suggestions for "opposite of hate". 1) Would you say that whether you love or hate something - specifically, to cite the poem, uranium 238 - is a petty point? 2) Would you say the poem could possibly succeed even if it failed on that point?

Please understand, I'm under no illusions about keeping myself pure. I just feel sorry for the poor bastard in the psalm wondering, and hope he decides a) it was pure, and b) it wasn't in vain. And I think you taking his position is goddamn madcap. You disagree? cf. http://www.poemranker.com/poem-details.jsp?id=121687 http://www.poemranker.com/poem-details.jsp?id=119425 http://www.poemranker.com/poem-details.jsp?id=116563 etc etc etc.

Please do not associate my comments with those of any other user on this website. The fact that "we" (meaning the majority of people to have posted comments on your poems) find your poetry an unremitting conveyor belt of bow'l sausages is solely down to your own boulangarie of failure.

The preferred term is "a wooden".

Please explain why you think 'cream' is an adjective.

I think you've been wearing your tin foil hat too close to the microwave again.

Are you a real hippy, or one of the regulars posing as one? -- a water molecule splashing up -- you mean 3 billion trillion, right? do babies really patter necessity to the ground as they're lunging for their first breath? I actually have no idea when a baby is likely to take its first piss. Perhaps you're right. --dew drops...grasshoppers drowning.. ??? Wtf does that have to do with disaffectation? Are the dewdrops sentient, are they actually actively rolling around seeking out grasshoppers to drown in some metaphorical expression of the discontentment of the masses? The next image has even less to do with the pome. Admit it: the phrase "oceans collide with sunsets" came into your head and gave you a woody, and you've never had the self-discipline to say "this has nothing to do with the pome" and elide it. How do frictionless elements get warmed? What does it mean for them to become warm? Then -- lets see if I've got this right -- connections develop between the frictionless elements, are then severed (by a severer who remains quite anonymous in the work) and the little severed floppy bits of the connections remain lying around to teach unity to the frictionless elements. What the fuck does that mean...is it, like, a metaphor? What is it a metaphor FOR? Please tell me one thing, because I confess as I reconstructed the imagery in my head I became quite curious about one detail...the remains of the severed connections that litter the space inhabited by the frictionless elements...do they sort of twitch and flop about? or do they teach us unity by lying quite deathly still? are they angry little writhing earthworms of severed empathy, or pale little gloworm ghosts of lost dreams of cameraderie? So anyway, you were walking along in Seattle, stepped in a mudpuddle, caught a glimpse of a grasshopper & a dewdrop, experieneced a sudden moment of disassociation, in the clarity of which you noticed you share your general sense of discontentment with all the other schmucks walking around in the rain, shook it off and walked on with a fleeting sense of mortality and a renewed commitment to your own affectation of alienation. well, good luck with your colliding sunsets and keeping your frictionless elements warm. peace, Goad

Let's be formal about this, Dovina. Def. A closed mind of domain D is a mind that deflects all propostions that are not in D, regardless of whether or not said propositions are true. Def. An open mind is a mind that accepts a proposition if and only if it can convince itself that the proposition is true. Dovina's Theorem. There exist true propositions that are picked up by an open mind and deflected by a closed one. Proof. Let C be the closed mind with the empty domain. C therefore deflects all propositions, so in particular it deflects the true proposition "Dovina has a woman's brain." Let O be the open mind that thinks Dovina has a woman's brain. By definition, O accepts the proposition "Dovina has a woman's brain" and we have the theorem. QED -=Dark_Angel=-, P.I.'s Important Theorem. For every open mind, there is an equivalent closed mind that accepts and rejects the same propositions. Proof. Let O be an arbitrary open mind. Let D be the collection of all propositions that O can convince itself are true. O is clearly equivalent to the closed mind with domain D. QED. Corollary. All Dovina has said is that different minds can disagree about the validity of a proposition. :(

You remind me of myself as a boy. Trapped in a wheeled-chair, terrified of the antlers under the bed.

You've also utterly missed the point, which was only to be expected. You're not crap at writing because you can't spell. You're crap at writing because you choose bad words. You don't understand this. You probably never will, because your intensely dim.

Actually, I said "your" deliberately. I say things like "your dim", "your thick", "your a tool", to provoke retards like you. Please, browse my rich history of comments. Congratulations, your a thicky.