By your diction I would think you're Meat Loaf.

People who think poetry should be something different are illiterates. I don't personally know any of these people, though the people I know are always talking about how they hate those other people. Personally, I doubt whether they exist. I've always heard hip-hop used to describe both the music and the lifestyle. I think it's because white people (including most of my professors) are more comfortable saying hip-hop than rap. I don't know why. It used to seem like a big deal to me that the world had "turned away from poetry" and so on and rap and pop music were the only poetic forms people paid attention to, but it doesn't now. Consider: 1) Originally, all poetry was set to music; it WAS music. 2) During times when access to singers/reciters or recorded music was limited, written poetry was a decent substitute. 3) But during those times there was no diminishment in the poetry-as-music movement, it was just hard to get at your isolated manor house. 4) Since recorded and live music became more available in the end of the 1800s, interest in written poetry has been diminished. Every generation since then has considered its musicians poets, and every generation has scandalized at the thought that people were paying attention to music-poetry more than nonmusic-poetry. Whatever. Here is a nowhere near complete list of the music people have had this same debate about: - Opera - Cole Porter and Broadway light opera - Jazz - Beat-style jazz - early rock - The Beatles - Bob Dylan - most other 60s rock - Led Zeppelin - early and most other rap - Bossa Nova and latin music - Grunge lyrics If you consider some of the genres on this list, DMX (actually, I think I meant Run DMC and was tired) isn't such a bad choice. Conclusion: Silly thing to argue about, nowhere near original, and not going away. The best thing to say is all music is poetry. Most is bad poetry.

For the gazillionth time, it fits the theory because the theory was made to fit the circumstances. Take the following circumstances: - a dishwasher explosion, - Wonder Years re-runs, - prison gang-rape, - the 1984 Olympic games, - water on Mars. A good scientist can make a theory that incorporates and explains all of these phenomena. Let's call this theory "Jimboism". If a slightly dim person studies Jimboism, she'll be astonished that dishwashers, re-runs, gang-rape, the 1984 Olympics, and water all act UNFAILINGLY according to this theory. She'll tend to credit the dishwasher, etc, with an extra importance, with some magic synchronicity. None of these things deserve that, the scientist does. Do you see yet? You'd have done better to say (as you almost have) that calling faith, etc, a product of evolution is important because it relieves you of responsibility for faith. Not only can you be excused for trying to be faithless and then rushing desparately back to God, but you know that people who try not to have faith ARE IN FACT UNNATURAL AND ACTING AGAINST THEIR NATURE. And some other cool evolution-produced traits fall into the same category! Like, - Killing in self-interest, - Stealing from non-relations to provide for your genetic line, - Eating fatty foods if you're a woman, - Being vain and appearance-centered if you're a man or woman, - Being horny and desperate if you're a man or woman. So hey, that IS pretty useful! But wait, wasn't there a point in history where evolution made pre-humans have grasping toes for a specific purpose related to survival of the species? And don't we NOT have grasping toes now? So doesn't that mean that characteristics "made by evolution" - even including faith, reproduction, and fat-eating - can become non-essential or obsolete, and therefore our own responsibilities again? Judges' ruling: NO SCORE FOR YOU.

2) Have I defined John?

Nonsense!

I agree with your thesis. Saying that something is made by evolution gives it importance because it says that it fits a theory, and in fitting, the thing can be understood in the context of that theory. For example, if faith developed through evolution, then the broader concepts of evolution can be applied to faith. For exaample, we could say in that case that faith may then increase our ability to survive and reproduce, which would help to perpetuate faith in future generations.

Are your flaps decorated? The comment seem vaguely personal. In any case, I hope your flaps are the semi-rigid kind that don't flap uslessly in the wind, waving goodbye to every rock your tires lift from the road. I picture you as one of those kind-to-little-people truckers who don't try to terrorize us.

Never assume about those whom you know not.

the decoration could be a reference to a love past or something of that nature.

Warning: Prepare for the onslaught.

Yes on the “of.” Thank you. See edit. Then kindly replace your vote. That would be the groovy thing to do.

You’re right about the rogue “as” in the last. I was tired last night writing it. You know how a poem stews all day while you’re driving. See edit. Then kindly replace your vote. The first flaps line has them waving goodbye to the rock. The second is the driver’s recollection of buying them and refers back to line 4. Same with the drowsy driver lines. The first has him drowsing, the second has him recovering.