Re: a comment on Jack by Dovina	29-Aug-05/12:16 PM
I got my analytical abilities from my dad and my dirty mind from my mom. You can see how this combo can get me in trouble at poemranker. I was afraid I might offend you but my point was to point out how you can make something so personal and versatile at the same time. You have a great knack for that. Jack: Your son? Jack Kerouac? Pet? See, versatile poetry.
Re: a comment on The Servant and The Messenger by ALChemy	29-Aug-05/11:55 AM
Even a thoughts must be searched or found before you can formulate it's meaning. And definitions are comprised of thoughts. Even if God found someone who had no idea of God's existance they would still need to first come upon the awareness of God's presence before they could realize what God is. Ps. 139:7-12 God is everywhere. We cannot escape His presence. 1 Ki. 8:27 The heavens cannot contain God. Jer. 23:23-24 No one can hide from God. He is always near at hand. God fills the heaven and earth. Heb. 4:13 There is no creature hidden from God's sight. All things are naked and opened to His sight. Acts 17:24-28 God is man's creator. God is not far from us. In Him, we live and move and have our being. If we seek God, we will find Him. But if we forsake God, He will cast us off (1 Ch. 28:9; Matt. 7:7-12; Ja. 4:7-10). God's everywhere (in heaven and earth) except hell which is the absence of God. Paul says to "lift up holy hands, without wrath and doubting" in prayer. That seems more to me like welcoming God with open arms not firing a signal or lighting a beacon but I could see you making a satellite dish comparison. I think when God speaks to us it's not some transmission but that he is actually there speaking from within to your soul which lives in a burrow without cable or satellite. To argue religion is pointless because it's based in interpretation and usually few facts. This has been very enlightening. You've made points that will have me soul-searching for hours to come. The Gold/God thing: I was thinking more how men have gone to war over both. Left thier families behind for both etc. I think you could make a great poem out of it. Maybe the find/define issue is more like the chicken/egg question.
Re: a comment on Jack by Dovina	29-Aug-05/5:04 AM
A breach is a gap, tear or hole. A breech is the buttocks. I can't speak for Dovina on this but I think she'd rather have Jack working on her breach and not her breech. But then again...
Re: Jack by Dovina	29-Aug-05/4:56 AM
I think a period after "snowflake" and losing the comma after "warm" and "returned" might clarify things. Is the last line missing a word or maybe "ed" at the end of "dwell". It's a good little love poem. Jack is either a rebound lover or Jack Frost? Hell Jack could even be the dog. But if you were to tell me that Jack was the name of your vibrator I'd piss my pants laughing and proclaim you super-genius.
Re: Quevedo: Psalm by Sasha	29-Aug-05/2:53 AM
A Psalm and a Sonnet. Unique. Although I can't see how this supposed psalm praises god. Nice trans. though.
Re: Emily Gray by Enkidu	29-Aug-05/2:41 AM
Don't use "hath" in this poem. The rest sounds good.
Re: a comment on The Trees in Spring (edit) by Sasha	29-Aug-05/2:21 AM
The rest sounds top notch.
Re: The Trees in Spring (edit) by Sasha	29-Aug-05/2:21 AM
"Thus Adam who had bitten into God," By bitten do you mean "pained". A suggestion: "Thus Adam who bit the hand of God,"
Re: The Moment of Over by Bethy	29-Aug-05/1:38 AM
"on the new sheets on my bed."- try "under the sheets of my bed." "my heart pounded, my chest heaved."- try "heart pounded, chest heaved." "You can't stay, there's no reason."- "Don't stay, there's no reason." "Hey, I said, you forgot your milk."- try "Hey wait" I said, "you forgot your milk." That should fix up the rythm some. No end rhyme in stanza 1? Great little story. I hope you dumped the milk on his sorry ass, or at least threw it at him.
Re: a comment on The Servant and The Messenger by ALChemy	29-Aug-05/12:59 AM
Another example: You FOUND one day that it seemed the splender of Gold and the splender of God are simular. You deduced that there must be an important connection between the two. You then added the splender of gold into your definition of God. By the way I think your Gold/God thing makes some good points. Especially when you look at their effects on us throughout history.
Re: a comment on The Servant and The Messenger by ALChemy	29-Aug-05/12:44 AM
Let me try to simplify. As early astronomers looked into the sky through their primitive telescopes they FOUND objects that did not appear to be stars. It was only later that they defined what they saw as planets etc. So you see you must find something before you define something otherwise you have no subject for definition. If you’re looking for something that has a complete definition then there's no discovery. God has not been completely defined. You can't use words that don't have a universal value like "Exceedingly Splendid" which to one person may be one thing and to another something else. That doesn't qualify as a complete definition but a vague one. Obviously we have some definition of God but not a complete one. If you truly understand God and the mind of God then you must be the Messiah. Moses knew not how to pray like that when God first spoke to him (No matter what mister Heston might have done in the movie). The bible also says God is everywhere so why would God have to send a message from space if God exists in even the tiniest particle in our bodies. It's like calling someone on your cell phone that’s standing right next to you.
Re: a comment on The Servant and The Messenger by ALChemy	28-Aug-05/6:40 AM
"The Splendour Of Gold Argument:" God and Gold are splendid because we see them that way but gold can lose it's splender and still be gold. Maybe god spoke us into being so that someday we might return the favor. Before us God would have existed without any objective definition. So maybe what our purpose is, is to find God and define God.
Re: a comment on The Servant and The Messenger by ALChemy	28-Aug-05/6:27 AM
I don't exactly consider myself a follower of the Summum 'philosophy'. I just think they might have been on to something with their creation theory. Some of things they come up with after that get a little absurd. I think nothingness is still governed by some law. That you can create nothingness by uniting matter with anti-matter and that matter comes from the potential of "something" somehow getting an edge over the potential of "nothing". Jesus may have been aware of the Summum philosophy. He certainly spent some time in Egypt.
Re: Lessons(revised) by bellafuego	27-Aug-05/7:30 AM
Truly an epiphany.
Re: a comment on orange crumble by impert&ent	27-Aug-05/7:26 AM
I looked up spall. Means chip away or crumble.
Re: Apollinaire: Mirabeau Bridge by Sasha	27-Aug-05/7:22 AM
I've never been the best at punctuation but shouldn't there be commas or something between "over/joy" and "come/bells". Was this a lyrical style poem? Sounds lyrical. It's probably the refrains that do it.
Re: a comment on The Servant and The Messenger by ALChemy	26-Aug-05/7:28 PM
I was just attempting to explain the summum philosiphy and I believe I admitted it was questionable. Are you saying if the highest number I can think of is we'll say 100 than infinity is 101. Even the mathematical definition isn't that simple. Any where there is nothingness there is potential. You can only add something to nothing. Your definition of infinite nothing is an exceptable definition but obviously we're here in some way so it's not practical.
Re: a comment on Dear Lord, by INTRANSIT	25-Aug-05/10:25 AM
The rest of it is good.
Re: Dear Lord, by INTRANSIT	25-Aug-05/10:25 AM
The last line might need an extra syllable I'm not sure but try sounding it out with "mankind's tide".
Re: a comment on Wrapping a Gift by Dovina	25-Aug-05/10:02 AM
led