Re: A Good Man Ruined by Dovina	Bankrupt_Word_Clerk 69.231.25.148	19-Jul-05/2:07 AM
Jimmy Buffet said it better. "Wasting away again in Margaritaville..."
Re: The sunset sea. by darby pyn	Bankrupt_Word_Clerk 69.231.25.148	19-Jul-05/2:05 AM
Oh my Fucking Howdy! Man...this just plain tires me out. I'm not voting on this.
Re: a comment on Low Tide by somemorepoetry	somemorepoetry 207.69.140.20	18-Jul-05/11:47 PM
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.
Re: a comment on matrimonal enemy by hendrimike	zodiac 212.118.19.104	18-Jul-05/11:04 PM
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: a comment on A Good Man Ruined by Dovina	zodiac 212.118.19.104	18-Jul-05/11:01 PM
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.
Re: a comment on Almost Persuaded by Dovina	zodiac 212.118.19.104	18-Jul-05/10:55 PM
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: a comment on Almost Persuaded by Dovina	zodiac 212.118.19.104	18-Jul-05/10:50 PM
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?
Re: Oh this little mouse, love by cpill	Shuushin 147.154.235.53	18-Jul-05/1:49 PM
quite s/b quiet Its s/b It's "playful wrestles a glance and and geez alright" - are the two "and"s intentional? As with a few of your other poems, I like where you ended up, but not necessarily how you got there - or maybe it's the other way around; I can't tell.
Re: a comment on Almost Persuaded by Dovina	-=Dark_Angel=-, P.I. 87.74.6.185	18-Jul-05/1:05 PM
"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.
Re: a comment on she sits back and judges me by hendrimike	hendrimike 70.106.117.116	18-Jul-05/10:54 AM
yup, that's it...on a whim and pissed
Re: a comment on A Good Man Ruined by Dovina	Dovina 66.235.60.64	18-Jul-05/8:04 AM
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.
Re: she sits back and judges me by hendrimike	Dovina 66.235.60.64	18-Jul-05/6:15 AM
an angry rant, nothing more.
Re: Distracted by pletcgm	Dovina 66.235.60.64	18-Jul-05/6:13 AM
Starts off well enough, but is too simply said toward the end.
Re: Low Tide by somemorepoetry	Dovina 66.235.60.64	18-Jul-05/6:12 AM
The first 2 verses are good, then it wanders like a beach comber.
Re: A Good Man Ruined by Dovina	Blindpoetry 68.111.56.213	17-Jul-05/10:43 PM
kind[of] like a poet woot.
Re: a comment on Almost Persuaded by Dovina	Dovina 67.40.18.249	17-Jul-05/3:17 PM
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?
Re: a comment on matrimonal enemy by hendrimike	hendrimike 151.204.6.124	17-Jul-05/2:40 PM
i just thought that nickel flowed better into the word in. "quarter in the machine..." i don't like it. same with dollar.
Re: a comment on a study in blossoms and beauty by oneglove	zodiac 212.118.19.74	17-Jul-05/6:37 AM
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.
Re: a comment on Almost Persuaded by Dovina	zodiac 212.118.19.74	17-Jul-05/6:34 AM
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.
Re: Let the Healing Begin by http://bandgeek	darby pyn 207.200.116.130	16-Jul-05/10:29 AM
well done. very profound and vivid.