Re: a comment on It's Time by PoeticXTC	Dovina 17.255.240.138	28-Dec-05/11:00 AM
Little fairies may fly around my head and happy marriages may exist because, and only because, I perceive them. If you are saying that the same applies to logic as an integral part of the universe, then the honeymoon is over, and we must start throwing things at each other in the kitchen. Just rmember how dismally Ralph's insuations always ended up.
Re: a comment on Ennui by Sisterwolf	Sisterwolf 207.69.137.41	28-Dec-05/10:57 AM
Since your pointing out my error, I deleted the first version. I know that somehow that will be wrong too and bring wrath. I am sliding off into the sunset, as I can't get the hang of things.
Re: a comment on Ennui by Sisterwolf	Sisterwolf 207.69.137.41	28-Dec-05/10:54 AM
Sisterwolf has had major brain damage from DV - she couldn't figure out how to delete properly, or she would have deleted the first version.
Re: a comment on Ennui by Sisterwolf	Dovina 17.255.240.138	28-Dec-05/10:50 AM
Right you are. I've never seen anyone do that before - revise a poem, retain the title, leave the old one there. It's like a tax loophole, perfectly legal, but of questionable ethics. This sister wolf is alright. Anyway, she knows what I think of deleting comments.
Re: a comment on It's Time by PoeticXTC	ALChemy 24.74.101.159	28-Dec-05/10:47 AM
Sorry Zodiac I meant to put that under Dovina's reply. By the way D.A. P.I's response is likely to be along the lines of: "Without any sense whatsoever I can tell you how many planets orbit any given star by using this calculation: x² + 7x + 53 = 11/3 ."
Re: a comment on It's Time by PoeticXTC	ALChemy 24.74.101.159	28-Dec-05/10:34 AM
Yes and little fairies flying around your head exist too if you define them as invisible creatures that you can't observe in any way. I'm not saying that love and logic don't exist. I'm just saying what they are depends on the eye of the beholder. Happy marriages are boring because they rely on ignorance and lack of conflict. Sure the two in the marriage don't think it's boring because they can't observe their marriage being that they are the subject of observation and so they need a third party to intervene.(It's at the core of quantum physics) What they see as exciting is each other and so they don't see the boringness of their stability. Now if you mean by happy marriage "The Honeymooners" than I say but it's the conflicts that make it so exciting and also make the resolves so romantic. And by "resolves" I mean Ralph bending Alice over the kitchen table and just before shoving it in yelling..."TO THE MOON ALICE. BANG, ZOOM, TO THE MOON!
Re: a comment on It's Time by PoeticXTC	ALChemy 24.74.101.159	28-Dec-05/10:11 AM
But still what he's deduced is based on information he's obtained from the telescope, books he's studied and countless other pieces of data he's obtained. All originally through his senses. If you're refering to logic as information not immediatly at hand but stored in memory and then arranged in a useful manner than fine, OK but it still all begins with the senses. Even Helen Keller had to start with a word she learned at an early age through hearing before she went deaf. Then only through touch could she be taught any further. In short there is no sense in such logic.
Re: a comment on Ennui by Sisterwolf	INTRANSIT 205.188.116.198	28-Dec-05/8:31 AM
Slow down Dovina. The original is still posted with all comments intact. Get some coffee.
Re: a comment on For Love of Baseball by Dovina	Dovina 209.247.222.85	28-Dec-05/8:13 AM
A sexual reference? Of course not! It's a matter of whether I cared that a homerun happened to that team and that player at that time. Before it did didn't, now it does.
Re: Ennui by Sisterwolf	Dovina 209.247.222.85	28-Dec-05/8:10 AM
I wish that you would not delete the comments when you make a revision. We can see which ones came after the revision by looking at the time stamps. You will find, if you stay here long, that poeple who delete comments get few. Thank you for the periods and the clarifications. It's better now.
Re: a cordial greeting by calliope	INTRANSIT 205.188.116.139	28-Dec-05/8:01 AM
the poison/blowgun/darts part needs redone. I think finding another image would be better. The last line jingles, perhaps another path to try.
Re: Ennui by Sisterwolf	INTRANSIT 205.188.116.69	28-Dec-05/7:51 AM
And, on we go. Nice clean-up. I personally would not mind if you stayed.
Re: For Love of Baseball by Dovina	INTRANSIT 205.188.116.69	28-Dec-05/7:46 AM
'mernin. I was too tired too read this last night. This morning is much better. I'm having trouble with the homerun. These days, homers happen all the time. Unless you're making a sexual refrence.
Re: a comment on It's Time by PoeticXTC	Dovina 209.247.222.85	28-Dec-05/7:39 AM
Happy marriages are not boring because the logic they stand on is independent of verification. Although I have substituted "logic" for "love" it works in its own right. It is not necessary to verify the existance of 332 planets to know that the logic used in deducing their existence is good. If the planets turn out to be figments, the logic still stands, because it is there - part of the universe as much as any other part. We can argue about the quality of certain "logical" processes. but that's another discussion. I only want to assert that love and logic exist.
Re: a comment on It's Time by PoeticXTC	Dovina 209.247.222.85	28-Dec-05/7:29 AM
Your deference for the incredulous -=Dark_Angel=-,P.I. borders on ludicrous.
Re: a comment on It's Time by PoeticXTC	zodiac 70.109.2.131	28-Dec-05/6:34 AM
"Perceptual verification" is also logical deduction. Suppose your scientist deduces 332 planets. Then he looks through his telescope and sees 332 dots. (If he's using a radio telescope he sees 332 splotches of radio waves that look like what he's deduced stars' radio waves look like, not the stars themselves, but that's beside the point.) In the end, he has to logically deduce that the 332 dots he sees are stars. Even if he were to construct a spacecraft and land on each of 332 "planets", he would at some point or level have to deduce that, for one, the matter he was standing on comprised a "planet" and this "planet" orbits the sun he was considering, and for two, that the sensations he was experiencing meant he was "standing" on "matter". Is his conclusion - that a particular star has 332 planets - any less logically deduced because he's seen the planets or stood on them? I'd say no. But I have a feeling -=Dark_Angel=-'s going to get back from the Orkneys and tear us all new ones on this. Best to go on about our business and pretend this whole thing never happened.
Re: a comment on For Love of Baseball by Dovina	zodiac 70.109.2.131	28-Dec-05/6:20 AM
Infield Fly Rule: http://www.poemranker.com/poem-details.jsp?id=119425
Re: For Love of Baseball by Dovina	ALChemy 24.74.101.159	28-Dec-05/2:17 AM
Explain the "Infield fly rule" to him and he's likely to propose to you on the spot.
Re: a comment on It's Time by PoeticXTC	ALChemy 24.74.101.159	28-Dec-05/2:10 AM
Logic is not logical without perceptual verification or influence. Even if some super mathematician worked out mathematically the likelyhood of 332 planets orbiting that star is 100% he still needs to use information obtained from the senses to imagine the concept and to see the star in the first place. You seem to think that if you started a super-computer with no programming except a binary code and it had no interaction with anything but itself than it would somehow miraculously figure out everything around it anyway. Happy marriages are boring.
Re: real fright of going home by veggiegurl	zodiac 70.109.2.131	27-Dec-05/9:34 PM
50 years ago, an American student your age could have recited William Cullen Bryant's "Thanatopsis" from memory. I'm not saying we're not better off than people were 50 years ago, but do *you* know what thanatopsis means?