Re: a comment on Gods Gift of Love by mckenzie	24-Mar-03/5:47 AM
I'll tell you what happened. It reached the stage where I had won the argument, as could be judged by any logically-minded person, and yet you appeared to continue talking absolute bollocks (cf. 'that makes you bias against the both of us. Two negative bias are still a bias in one direction.'), so I stopped bothering.
Re: a comment on Gods Gift of Love by mckenzie	23-Mar-03/9:25 AM
You swallow everything I give you with an eager look and a proud telling-off when you've digested it.
Re: a comment on Gods Gift of Love by mckenzie	23-Mar-03/8:09 AM
P.S. For extra credit, rearrange the words in the following string to mean `possibly`: `necessarily not not`
Re: a comment on Gods Gift of Love by mckenzie	23-Mar-03/8:05 AM
Now to address your points about this being an decent poem. It is not. It is a terrible work through and through, with nothing original, well-put, imaginative, evocative, clever, pleasant-sounding or even rhyming in it. And that's just for its merit as a bearable string of ideas, let alone its conformity to the definition of 'poem'. The lexicographical incompetence of the author is merely the icing on the cake. P.S. Although "lexicographical" means "pertaining to writing or compiling a dictionary", not "pertaining to spelling and grammar", I used it because the dangerously self-referential thought process necessarily undergone to formulate the definition is so dangerous that we have to use it every time we can so the definition is not lost.
Re: a comment on Gods Gift of Love by mckenzie	23-Mar-03/7:54 AM
4. The reference of "you" in "as much as you'd think" isn't fixed, if it means "the average person who has no special knowledge about how often people take off for typos". The amount the average person would think will vary over time. The degree to which spelling is everything will also vary over time, since the moral importance of spelling will change (e.g. if aliens who punish bad spelling take over the world and we have to protect our families with the power to spell properly), but clearly not coincidentally with the average person's opinion of spelling (people might come to think spelling is everything because it saves their lives, or they might come to think spelling is worthless and detestable, because they hate the spelling-loving aliens so much). Then does "you" mean something else? There don't seem any plausible alternatives. If you meant "as much as I, thepinkbunnyofdoom, would think", then there would be no point in mentioning it, because, since I know nothing about how often you think people take off for typos, you can't convince me that it's an overestimate. If you meant "you, -=Dark_Angel=-", that would be absurd. Let's call however much *I* would think 'X'. Now obviously I believe in the proposition "'People take off X amount", and nothing could possibly change that, since even if you convinced me that people take off hardly at all, then the value of X - what I believe the amount is - would change to be "hardly at all", and it would still be true to say "People take off X amount", i.e. "People take off hardly at all". But, even though I necessarily believe in "People take off X amount", what you're trying to convince me of is "People *don't* take off X amount", which is the negation of what I necessarily believe. So the only way you could possibly convince me is if I did an impossible thing (disbelieve what I necessarily believe). Therefore for you to convince me is only possible if it's impossible, which is to say it's impossible, and therefore possible, and therefore impossible. In other words, impossible. In other words, possible. In other words... IMPOSSIBLE. QED motherfucker. In other words, check motherfucking mate. In other words, better motherfucking luck next time, motherfucker. 5. "Not as much as you'd think" doesn't even have any of the same words in them as "People take off for typos everywhere". It's obvious who the person who is right is and who the one who is the one who is wrong is is. You! And me! In that god damn order! WHICH MEANS YOU'RE WRONG. TALK ABOUT GUTTED TO THE MOTHERFUCKING MAX DUDE RADICAL WIIIIIIIPEOUTTT DUDUDUDUDUDUDUDUDUDUDUDUDUDU Your dad, -=Dark_Angel=-
Re: a comment on Gods Gift of Love by mckenzie	23-Mar-03/7:53 AM
Oh! You were trying to get that across, huh? Yeah? Great! Were you? Really? Oh yeah? Tough guy, huh! Oh, yeah, sure. Come on man. Then how come you said "people don't take off for typos as much as you'd think"? Is that the same as "spelling isn't everything"? No! It isn't! I don't think you'll find it is! I've checked! It's not the same!!!!11111 Let's look at a point-by-point rundown of exactly why "spelling isn't everything" isn't the same as "people don't take off for typos as much as you'd think". 1. It could be that spelling wasn't everything, but that people still took off for typos all the time, if, for the sake of example, everyone took a drug that made them take off for everything. 2. It could be that spelling *was* everything, but that people didn't take off for typos, if, for example, people suddenly all took drugs that made them mild-mannered. 3. "Spelling isn't everything" is a statement about values. Its truth depends on moral facts. "People don't take off for typos as much as you'd think" is a statement about people. Its truth depends on facts that don't need to be (and probably aren't) moral.
Re: a comment on Gods Gift of Love by mckenzie	22-Mar-03/5:21 AM
What's that supposed to mean? You don't know how much or how often I think it happens, so you obviously don't know whether it happens more or less than that. But just so you do know, here is how much it happens: A lot. Here are some things that happen if you can't spell or punctuate: * You lose marks on tests and exams. * You can't get a job that requires literary skills (such as "poet"). * People think you are a moron or a teenager or both. * You will get into arguments on the internet. * You will become a defensive retard who keeps telling himself that spelling and punctuation aren't important at all, and it's what's inside that counts. P.S. Although I don't think I know everything, I do think I know 91% of things, which is more than you know. The 9% of things I do not know is in the field of emergency bum surgery.
Re: Gods Gift of Love by mckenzie	21-Mar-03/5:41 PM
Please tell me. Do you actually believe that 'ur' is the spelling of that word?
Re: a comment on Gods Gift of Love by mckenzie	21-Mar-03/2:52 PM
People "take off" for typos everywhere.
Re: a comment on My Tomahawk goes up, UP, AND AWAY! by Jeremi B. Handrinos	21-Mar-03/1:57 PM
BREAKIN THE LAW BREAKIN THE LAW I'm listening to it right now. It's about the eighth time today. I'm going to fucking explode. P.S. Listen to "Hail Horror Hail" by Sigh. It's fucking ace.
Re: a comment on Kooo Kooo DirectOr by wLeBlancw	21-Mar-03/1:53 PM
Yes: The Amputee Pirate Pegbury von Peglegs III
Re: a comment on Kooo Kooo DirectOr by wLeBlancw	21-Mar-03/1:21 PM
I suppose. It would have been funnier if she had peg legs.
Re: a comment on Kooo Kooo DirectOr by wLeBlancw	21-Mar-03/1:20 PM
Or what? You'll depict me in a child's storybook?
Re: a comment on Floating in mindless clutter of words by wLeBlancw	21-Mar-03/12:22 PM
hook line and sinker lol
Re: a comment on Kooo Kooo DirectOr by wLeBlancw	21-Mar-03/12:19 PM
That's a pretty fucking special talent you have there, zzinnia66. If only everyone had the power of the I'm Feeling Lucky button, poemranker would be a wonderful, cosy place where anyone who breaks the rules would INSTANTLY have their poems removed!!
Re: Who am I? by thepinkbunnyofdoom	21-Mar-03/9:46 AM
Apparently you think the aim of poetry is to take an idea on which you have only the vaguest of grasps, write down the first things that come to your mind when you think about the idea, and then try to confuse the reader with obtuse, meaningless sentences that at first glance look like ones that actually have meanings, so their grasp is made even worse than yours. Well you're right! That is the aim of poetry.
Re: a comment on My Tomahawk goes up, UP, AND AWAY! by Jeremi B. Handrinos	21-Mar-03/9:28 AM
Fuck you. Every time I look at your comment I have to listen to Judas Priest just to get the fucking song out of my head, and I hate Judas Priest.
Re: a comment on PIGS of the world by wLeBlanc IIIw	21-Mar-03/9:26 AM
Nobody is "busted" or "a tawdry thief". LeBlanc III is Settle, and he's posting poems he didn't write on purpose to get people excited.
Re: a comment on Live by Luv2write	20-Mar-03/11:50 AM
The word 'lol' has nothing to do with laughing. One says 'lol' when one wishes to summon the power of a certain mental state. By uttering 'lol', the intent to instantiate the state is announced, and the instantiation begins or is more completely done. But it can also be used as a threat of entering that state, or a bluff. It's true that part of the power of the 'lol'-state comes from the common misconception that 'lol' has something to do with laughter, so by telling you this I am compromising my gender-specific individuality profile, but since I respect you so much as a poet, a lover, a friend and most of all as a human being, I thought you should know. xoxo -=Dark_Angel=-
Re: a comment on Live by Luv2write	20-Mar-03/10:48 AM
Why? Because Jesu is the Son of Jesu. That's why. Neither Hitler nor Lenin were Jesu. Take a look at yourself. You disgusting prawne of a man. You think you've got it all worked out. You think you know the difference between right and wrong. Well I've got news for you, punk: only Jesu knows that. You've been blinded by your own moral preconceptions. I bet I could bring up a baby to believe that wearing shoes was the naughtiest, most immoral thing you could possibly do. You just drill it into them with a drill. So you see, your moral convictions hold just as much sway as my moral conviction that shoes are very naughty indeed. They certainly have just as much justification.