Re: Take Heart Mr. Drake, the Worst is Behind You by wilco	<~> 167.206.181.179	26-Oct-05/10:06 AM
i like this.
Re: a comment on dialect by skaskowski	Dovina 209.247.222.92	26-Oct-05/8:20 AM
I'm bored too. Let's leave it there.
Re: a comment on Eternity by Dovina	Dovina 209.247.222.92	26-Oct-05/8:13 AM
No, that's a completely different subject. Some other time. And the original subject you have totally misrepresented.
Re: a comment on dialect by skaskowski	zodiac 217.144.7.195	26-Oct-05/6:34 AM
Of course. And if that doesn't work, there's always this: "[The] total of Iraqi dead since the American-led invasion is 26,690 to 30,051... A recent analysis [shows] that more than 60 Iraqis were killed daily this year, up from 40 last year." -today's NY Times
Re: when i make sculpture by ay deee	zodiac 217.144.7.195	26-Oct-05/5:53 AM
"Usage Note: It is not surprising that blatant and flagrant are often confused, since the words have overlapping meanings. Both attribute conspicuousness and offensiveness to certain acts. Blatant emphasizes the failure to conceal the act. Flagrant, on the other hand, emphasizes the serious wrongdoing inherent in the offense. Certain contexts may admit either word depending on what is meant: a violation of human rights might be either blatant or flagrant. If it was committed with contempt for public scrutiny, it is blatant. If its barbarity was monstrous, it is flagrant. Blatant is sometimes used to mean simply “obvious,” as in the blatant danger of such an approach, but this use has not been established and is widely considered an error."
Re: a comment on Eternity by Dovina	zodiac 217.144.7.195	26-Oct-05/5:48 AM
Yeah, you're so casual about the matter you can't stop yourself from calling everyone who's bothered mentioning your poem's technical clumsiness a, um, what's your expression? oh, a disagreer. For example, WILCO: I think the last half kills it. DOVINA: You probably like the joking part and object to the belief. ZODIAC: Change that to something less totally didactic and wood-tongued. DOVINA: You are simply disagreeing with the Christian position that “To die is gain.” ALCHEMY: I know you're taking what the doctors are saying out of context but it's a bit confusing. DOVINA: You say BOO because it seems contradictory. But for a Christian, Blaaaaaaaaaat. In other words, none of us cares to discuss the doctrinal part. Maybe YOU care to discuss it because it's like the third time you've totally flipped on the matter since coming to poemranker and you're rather proud of yourself (rather than, say, wondering if your such a total sack of contradictions you mightn't just fly apart at any moment.) Personally, we're bored with the matter. You don't believe me. Whatever. It's old news. What I DO care to discuss is the annihilation of the self into God. If you're not going to discuss that with me, I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you to go somewhere else. Now I'll start. ZODIAC: If (as only seems reasonable) the soul is incorporated into God at the instant of death, so that all, say, the imperfect parts of zodiac are burned away and what's left is only perfection and God-love, can I really say zodiac (ie, the part of zodiac that makes him zodiac) "survives death" or experiences heaven in any meaningful way? If (as only seems reasonable) I become some perfect-and-totally-different eternal zodiac, will I really care?
Re: a comment on dialect by skaskowski	zodiac 217.144.7.195	26-Oct-05/5:30 AM
Okay, seriously, what possible answers to that question did you imagine? Carney? Kennedy? Australian? It's a silly question without even the benefit of SOUNDING deep. PS-You should consider "Arabic".
Re: a comment on dialect by skaskowski	zodiac 217.144.7.195	26-Oct-05/5:27 AM
Boring. Okay, I'm bored. God will more likely admit the selfish to heaven, because the selfish has at least secured the well-being of one person during his lifetime - himself - while the selfless has possibly not done so. For all we know, the selfless killed himself building movie theatres on small tropic islands to show Wes Anderson films to their mystified and disappointed inhabitants. God will most likely FORGIVE the selfless first, though, because the selfless is more likely to be stupid, and stupid people deserve forgiveness. I'm not saying selfless people are stupid, I'm saying if 5% of actually selfless people are stupid, 4% of actually selfish people are. It's all about probabilities. I predict the totally unproductive direction this conversation takes is going to hinge on whether we define selfishness as (1) working for one's own well-being before others' or (2) doing the drugs and raping everybody and stepping on kittens and never working for anyone's well-being ever - i.e., greediness to the point of self-destruction. I propose accepting definition (1) from the start. Definition (2) is for losers and Bushies and doesn't make any sense.
Re: a comment on In my palm by Prince of Void	zodiac 217.144.7.195	26-Oct-05/5:16 AM
Also, The Jitterbug.
Re: a comment on In my palm by Prince of Void	zodiac 217.144.7.195	26-Oct-05/5:16 AM
Hey, there was one great fad a couple of years ago that really rocked. It was called Making Sense Occasionally, you should check it out.
Re: a comment on i hung that page to dry by FreeFormFixation	FreeFormFixation 70.225.166.245	25-Oct-05/10:25 PM
redundancy is too fun, english is one of the few languages that frowns upon it
Re: a comment on dialect by skaskowski	skaskowski 70.225.166.245	25-Oct-05/10:22 PM
hahahahahaha
Re: a comment on Eternity by Dovina	wilco 24.92.74.122	25-Oct-05/7:36 PM
I object to the second half becauseI simpy don't like it. It doesn't strike me as being anything more than someone accepting their fate, which, In my view isn't anything new or exciting. You Christians seem to have an overly optimistic view of death in verse or conversation, but the tune often changes when the end is actually staring you in the eye (not all, but many).
Re: a comment on dialect by skaskowski	wilco 24.92.74.122	25-Oct-05/7:24 PM
mmm...1,000...1,500...1,999 soldiers lives...meaningless...now 2,000! That's a number we can get behind.
Re: MOMENTS From A Madman's Mind by PsydewaysTears	wilco 24.92.74.122	25-Oct-05/7:21 PM
The third stanza is just not very good, but the rest isnt too bad...not real wild about the capitalized words either...I'm guessing you did it because they all have to do with time, but it's actually kind of distracting.
Re: Intimate Joy by flightoffancy	wilco 24.92.74.122	25-Oct-05/7:17 PM
The uncrossable void line doesn't really work
Re: when i make sculpture by ay deee	Dovina 69.175.32.104	25-Oct-05/5:37 PM
The last verse is a disappointment after that good build-up.
Re: a comment on Eternity by Dovina	Dovina 69.175.32.104	25-Oct-05/5:27 PM
Yes, it’s a familiar debate – hohum by now. Yawn. You see my religious remarks as attempts to ruffle feathers, and respond ruffled in some other way, such as thinking I’m proud, rubbing in stuff you’ve heard since you were a kid. And after some outburst along another line of thought, in this case disintegration of the self, you pronounce yourself the winner with check and mate. In most of these arguments I’ve had no desire to feather ruffle, but rather to express some belief or opinion for open discussion.
Re: a comment on Incommunicado blues (fixed, except for Dovina) by zodiac	Dovina 69.175.32.104	25-Oct-05/4:21 PM
Oh, but it did - stains and empty nests prove it.
Re: a comment on dialect by skaskowski	Dovina 69.175.32.104	25-Oct-05/4:10 PM
No, really, consider the question: Who would God forgive first - the selfish or the selfless? Ahd which does He more accurately resemble?