How do you mean that? Do you mean in terms of the theme, the imagery, the structure, etc.? Because if you mean in terms of the structure and the less poetic diction than it was done purposefully...but then it again, it might have been an ineffective technique.

Yeah, that's probably why people have said "nickel in the machine" since machines actually ran on nickels. The problem isn't really the wording, it's that the whole image is way past its prime.

re "there went a man I can understand" Was he Jimmy Buffet? Consider: "Some people claim that there's a WO - MAN TO BLAME, But I know it's my own damn fault." No points for originality.

Hey, thanks for your contribution. Does this mean you're back from vacationing in the Hebrides? I was trying to say that if things like dark matter exist (or do the dark matter equivalent of existing) then the whole physical universe is pretty much the secret Wolfenstein level. But scientists would probably figure out ways to explain and predict it anyway. As you know perfectly well.

re: "The current statements, which we call the laws of physics, may change, but I don't think the LAWS change" Yes, yes, of course. How could they? So basically by LAWS you mean a set of characteristics or tendencies that are observable in the universe?

"We know now that none of these hold entirely true - especially on the subatomic level, but probably on other levels as well." The most important of these other levels are the emotional level, and the secret Wolfenstein level.

yup, that's it...on a whim and pissed

It's always desirable to draw attention to your own lonliness. So like a poet he is. Maybe some teenager will read his words scratched on the stud of that wall he's building and say in some distant century, there went a man I can understand, and post it on poemranker.

I think we have a basic difference of belief about physics. I believe it follows LAWS, which are true whether anybody knows what they are or not. The current statements, which we call the laws of physics, may change, but I don't think the LAWS change. I believe this because so many things are constant and predictible that many other things must be also. It's called probability. It's not moot really, and some other things about physics seem chaotic, challenging my belief. Again, answer, if you desire, what or who made these consistencies I prefer to call LAWS?

i just thought that nickel flowed better into the word in. "quarter in the machine..." i don't like it. same with dollar.

re: ant hills in sand dunes. Tons. They're about the only thing thriving here. I do hope you got my point somewhere along the line.

A: SCIENTISTS made the laws of physics in order to explain (or better, predict) what as you might say happens and has always happened. That the laws of physics seem to hold true in most cases is a sign of scientists' throroughness and exactitude, and not necessarily God's. To wit, if today, July 17, water flowed uphill in a tiny suburb of Buenos Aires, scientists wouldn't abandon their laws of gravity or throw up their hands and accept the existence of God; they'd probably just write a law saying something like "Water tends to flow downhill, except in a Buenos Aires suburb on July 17, 2005." Sounds ridiculous? Consider that if we were having this conversation 100 years ago, we would have accepted the following as "uniform laws" of physics: 1) The forces two masses exert upon each other may be calculated by the formula F = 6.67 × 10^-11 x m1 x m2 / r^2 2) Matter cannot be created or destroyed. 3) An object at rest will stay at rest until acted upon by a force, at which point it will act predictably according to the force. Ditto for an object in motion. We know now that none of these hold entirely true - especially on the subatomic level, but probably on other levels as well. What happened when we discovered these laws didn't hold? We made up more laws to accomodate the contingincies. It's even possible that science could someday be an infinite set of infinitely contingient laws, specific to the point of uselessness. This, incidentally, is what I imagine a universe "without" laws of physics being like. All of this, too, is kind of moot since our universe being as it is is what allows us to be having this conversation, and in a semi-rational or scientific manner, I might add. It's kind of like saying "I wonder what I'd think about the meaning of life if I'd been born on Pluto instead of on Earth." I do hope a topic's being moot doesn't prevent us from talking about it in the future.