Re: Awesome Heir by Shin-Bojangles	21-Aug-02/3:36 PM
Shin-Bojangles: It doesn't matter whether elves are, "in fact", the most dangerous things on the face of the earth. Males with pointy ears who gallop around on horses and sing about Elbereth are pussies in my book. Think about it; if any human males did it in the actual world then they would undoubtedly be pussies (other things being equal). The world Ultimate Fighting champion would be a pussy if he wore a velvet dress on weekends and sang along to Cyndi Lauper in a karaoke bar. My point is that being a pussy can shine through even in the face of fighting ability. And I'm really, really, really, really sorry if someone objects to my use of the term "pussies", but it's a perfectly standard use of the word, and unless you can think of a better way to convey the idea then stop bitching. But aside from the fact that they're pussies, I don't think I'd be thinking anything about their elegantness or fierceness. The "contrast" of "elegant" and "fierce" is possibly one of the least interesting things ever. What is people's obsession with trite "constrasts"? I swear sometimes I think I'm going to explode. Powerful yet gentle. Innocent yet wicked. Elegant yet fierce. It's not that amazing. It's a common occurrence for something to have apparently-contrasting properties, especially in wish-fulfilment fiction (not that I'm saying LOTR is wish-fulfilment fiction. Just that a lot of people treat it that way). Why this is seen as so 'special' or 'magical' or 'beautiful' or 'wonderful' (not that you implied any of those things) is beyond me. I can of course see why it's appealing, and I think I can see why people become obsessed with things that incorporate particular kinds of contrasts, but "elegant yet fierce" is something straight out of a 14-year-old girl's diary, and for grown men and women to obsess over elves just because they're "elegant yet fierce" is insane. And, of course, they're fictional, which is another reason why it's so despicable. As for you, you silly tart god'swife: if you aren't another one of horus8's incredibly stimulating alter egos, allow me to explain something to you: I was well aware of the semantic tension between 'androgynous' and 'pussies'. I left it in because a) the use of the word 'pussies' is non-literal, b) the sex organs of the female are not themselves male or female, and c) I didn't think anyone would do anything so incredibly facile as point out the tension. My mistake.
Re: The Only Solution by Angelofpain25	21-Aug-02/3:39 PM
There is no hell. There is no hell. There is no hell. There is no hell. There is no hell. Kill yourself. It's the only solution. The only problem is, you're too weak. You weak, worthless nobody. Only kidding! have a great time on poemeranker!!
Re: The Only Solution by Angelofpain25	21-Aug-02/3:53 PM
But, "in all seriousness", any person has the right to kill themselves whenever they fucking want. There may be reasons why they "shouldn't" (like other obligations), but ceteris paribus there's no justification for forbidding killing yourself. You should be ashamed of yourself for trying to force people into your horrible, horrible, horrible, horrible, horrible religion, "jade".
regarding some deleted poem...	22-Aug-02/5:07 AM
Since people seem to be "misinterpreting" this haiku, I will explain: The title means "recollection of the dead craftsman". The haiku is about a craftsman who is dead but suddenly remembers that he left the lathe running, so he rises from the dead to turn it off.
Re: Awesome Heir by Shin-Bojangles	22-Aug-02/5:17 AM
The use of the word "pussy" to describe (etc...) it may be absurd, but it fills a gap in the language that no other word easily fills. Being a pussy is not the same as being effeminate or cowardly. Calling someone a dick is equally "valid". About the 'men rant and rave but don't like it when women do it' bit. Where did you get that idea from? Some of the most amusing 'rants' on this site are from 'razorgrin', berating someone's adolescent folly. More to the point, one correct response to a rant is a rant, so I'm not sure why you thought I (or whoever) was 'upset' by responding to your rant with a rant.
Re: Awesome Heir by Shin-Bojangles	22-Aug-02/5:18 AM
And no, the sex organs are not male or female in the same sense that humans are male or female. Otherwise sex organs would have sex organs. Can you imagine the horror?
Re: Awesome Heir by Shin-Bojangles	22-Aug-02/7:57 AM
Razorgrin, was your comment just a weird coincidence, or did you, too, see a TV programme about women changing into men and taking hormones so that their clitorises grew into monstrous quasi-penises? One of them said, in a horrible androgynous voice, "It's not quite a clit, it's not quite a dick. I call it my clitdick."
regarding some deleted poem...	22-Aug-02/8:10 AM
The first part of that comment is wery perceptive, Mr. Bojangles. However, I'm afraid you will have no time to gloat, since by 3 o'clock this afternoon you will be dead. Dead of bum cancer. Goodbye, Mr. Bojangles.
Re: Awesome Heir by Shin-Bojangles	22-Aug-02/10:09 AM
god'swife, I don't think you quite see the point I am making. The point is this (correct me if I get any of it wrong): there is a property called "gender" which most humans have. This property commonly has the value 'male' or 'female'. This property is, I believe, a composite property, consisting of among other things, hormone levels, type of reproductive organs, etc. Now clearly this property is not one than can be had by sex organs. There is another property which also commonly takes the values 'male' and 'female', and this property applies to sex organs. But clearly the properties are not the same. That is all I am saying. I am not saying anything like "there aren't male and female sex organs". Do you see?
regarding some deleted poem...	22-Aug-02/10:10 AM
Don't you think you're being cliched for calling them cliched for calling you cliched?
Re: What is Gold by mojoro23	22-Aug-02/10:11 AM
Have you heard the Splendour of Gold argument for the existence of God, my childe?
regarding some deleted poem...	22-Aug-02/10:16 AM
Are we calling each other by first name now? How fucking delightful!
Re: Awesome Heir by Shin-Bojangles	22-Aug-02/11:20 AM
Jesus Christ, woman! Will you stop making the same point over and over and actually read what I said? I am NOT making any sort of point about gender identity. I am not attempting to give you my views on what makes a person male or female. I am making the extremely simple point that ALTHOUGH SEX ORGANS CAN BE 'MALE' OR 'FEMALE' IN ONE SENSE, IT IS NOT THE SAME SENSE IN WHICH ANIMALS ARE 'MALE' OR 'FEMALE'. I am a male. My sex organs, however, are not males. They are 'male sex organs', but that's not to say that they're sex organs that are male. In the same way, to say that something's a fake Picasso is not to say it's a Picasso that is fake (it isn't a Picasso at all). French letters are not letters that are French. 'Male sex organs' just means those sex organs most associated with males, or at the very least it does not indicate that the sex organs themselves are 'male' in the same way that I am male. OK? Do you see what I am saying? I don't give two fucks about the ins and outs of gender identity in people; nor do I have any particular opinions on the subject.
Re: Awesome Heir by Shin-Bojangles	22-Aug-02/1:54 PM
god'swife, i'm sure when you have a special degree in gender identity, every discussion about sex must seem like a confusion in your specialist area. But that's no reason to use absurd words like "dick" and "pussy".
Re: ode to bad taco meat by gay	22-Aug-02/1:56 PM
Someone on this site must think that imitative mockery is a difficult or interesting form of taunting. It is not. This work is devoid of any of the wond'rous splendour that infuses my heav'nly odes. I will thank you, Sir, to cease your mediocre attempts at parody afore ye make a worse fool our of yourself than ye already are.
Re: saving myself for marriage by Venus	22-Aug-02/3:09 PM
Don't tell them Venus! If they don't get that delightful allusion already, they don't deserve to understand.
Re: saving myself for marriage by Venus	22-Aug-02/3:59 PM
Look here, PAKI: Venus already said what the allusion was, so I clearly wasn't trying to actually prevent anyone from finding out what the allusion was to. I was merely trying some role play of a jealous child who knows something and doesn't want anyone else to know. That's because I find that sort of child incredibly amusing. Perhaps you were playing the role of a feckless, generic-beratement-generating dumbfuck! If so, good job!!
Re: I've got the eaten my crustacean soulmate blues by -=Dark_Angel=-, P.I.	22-Aug-02/4:08 PM
Don't be silly. Nothing is better than 'AIDS in a Glass'.
Re: Gilded Stumps of Olde (AN STORY THAT IS NOT AN POEME) by -=Dark_Angel=-, P.I.	23-Aug-02/5:07 PM
"PAKI", you are misled. I don't believe I have ever said that my "poetry" is supposed to be bad. I have said that two of the poemes that I wrote that are in the worst section were intended to end up in the worst section (the 'AIDS in a <x>' limericks). Surely even you can believe that. I have also said that, when certain people criticise my poetry, they are misguided simply because they assume I am trying to do something I am not (e.g. "create a beautiful image", "say something profound about the nature of human existence"). Most of my most vehement detractors (and most of those who I defend myself against) are teenagers whose cack love poetry I have disparaged. It would be incredibly stupid to do what you claim I do and say "I'm intentionally bad, so by calling me bad you are calling me good". Most of my disparaging comments go on the basis that some poemes are just rubbish, unless the goal is specifically to create that exact style of poeme. My criteria for rubbishness include unaware clichedness, technical incompetence, banal sentiment, etc. These are accurate criteria in most cases. If you care to notice, I rarely seriously disparage the 'serious' poetes' poemes, because since they don't meet any of the 'universal' criteria for rubbishness, and I don't know what it is they're trying to do, my comments would likely be misguided. As for this story, I do not think it is as mediocre as you make it out to be. Perhaps that is because I wrote it. I think you are annoyed that horus8 likes it, because you don't like it and you can't see why he does. I may be wrong. I think he likes it for the same reason I wrote it, which is one of those things that is nearly impossible to succinctly explain. Or maybe he is just being incredibly ironic, and he hates it. Who knows?!?! Good comment though!!
regarding some deleted poem...	24-Aug-02/11:57 AM
Some people base their entire lives around being offended and priding themselves on following arbitrary principles. These people have two reactions to what they see as an unpleasant social situation: a) tell themselves they're really offended and act accordingly, or b) tell themselves they're not offended at all and start trying to act aloof. Both of you are perfect specimens of this sort of person. I hope things work out for you igotissuez99!!!!