Re: Mystical Chinese Dragon by that_funny_girl	21-Aug-05/1:44 PM
Congratulations! You've won the prize for most arbitrary line break of the month! (It's the one between 'and I' and 'would frolic in the park')
Re: a comment on London Calling by Bluemonkey	29-Jul-05/2:20 AM
Even the finest Persian carpets must have at least one blemmish, lest they affect a perfection that touches the buttocks of God. And so it is with poetry, the obvious exception being 'The Spaz' by ?-Dave_Mysterious-?
Re: a comment on My Golden Birthday by jessicazee	29-Jul-05/1:47 AM
"Nappy" is an old celtic word meaning "One who is not ashamed." I have no idea why Stephen employed it in a diaperesque context. I really like your poem by the way.
Re: Changing the Air by Miggy	21-Jul-05/5:36 PM
bulgingly cack
Re: My Golden Birthday by jessicazee	21-Jul-05/5:19 PM
A raw, uncompromising, indignant, vital, terrifying, brutally honest literary collage of everyday life in the urban skate scene with massively fat cheeks, sunken eyes, and an unbelievably appalling forehead. Nice one.
Re: Victoria Applesmack and the Easy to Clean Wonder-Spleen by T. Jonathron Remp	21-Jul-05/5:09 PM
This poeme exudes excellence, though the title is a little too 'self-consciously zany' for my tastes. -10-
Re: CAN'T TAKE THE PAIN by prettyktm	21-Jul-05/5:07 PM
This makes me sick. How dare you sully us with the lurid details of your dumpling of a love-life? This is a poetry website, and poetry is about thoughts, feelings, and emotions. Not tawdry 'late night' shows interspersed with teenage 'menages a trois.' Great poeme though :( -10-
Re: a comment on Almost Persuaded by Dovina	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 Applicative-Order Fixed-Point Operator by -=Dark_Angel=-, P.I.	4-Jun-05/1:36 PM
The poeme is written in a made-up version of Scheme where (λx ...) is short for (lambda (x) ...). It can be used to write a recursive function without having to give it a name. It's quite mind-bending to think about.
Re: a comment on Applicative-Order Fixed-Point Operator by -=Dark_Angel=-, P.I.	4-Jun-05/11:20 AM
What's Fortran got to do with it? This poeme isn't anything to do with Fortran. One couldn't even write it in Fortran.
Re: Life and Love by windyone	30-May-05/4:20 PM
A brave turd, but ultimately doomed. Last words: "I'm going to make it!"
Re: a comment on Nesting Instinct of Women by Dovina	29-May-05/1:13 AM
At what point does a number become so large that it is 'nearly infinite'? Anything more than a killion, I'd say.
Re: a comment on Applicative-Order Fixed-Point Operator by -=Dark_Angel=-, P.I.	26-May-05/4:28 PM
Not really. By the way, I've recently been reading about the role of ladies in computer science. My favourite historicum is that in the 19th century there was a mathematical journal called the "Ladies Diary." Apparently it was just for ladies!
Re: a comment on Applicative-Order Fixed-Point Operator by -=Dark_Angel=-, P.I.	26-May-05/3:12 PM
Even when you've been utterly, utterly trumped on, you still can't stop your beak from flapping. I) Instead of, perhaps, trying to understand the poeme, or at least learn something from the experience of making a colossal wally of yourself, your mind is instead fixated on what OTHER PEOPLE might be thinking. II) Of course nobody else reading this counts or cares. But you counted, I counted, I care, and clearly you care. I care because I want the function to be correct. Christ knows why you care. III) This poeme does not contain words. It contains parentheses, λs and variables. So yes, the difference between 8 parentheses and 9 parentheses clearly is more relevant than words. I'm fairly stunned that you can't see that. Why would you want to waffle on about words in evaluating this poeme?
Re: a comment on Applicative-Order Fixed-Point Operator by -=Dark_Angel=-, P.I.	26-May-05/10:39 AM
You don't have the faintest idea what this does. There are two opening brackets on the second line for a reason. Your suggestion is equivalent to yanking an arrow out of a cowboy, because it looks sharp. Note only that, but THERE ARE IN FACT THE CORRECT NUMBER (9) OF BRACKETS OF EACH TYPE ANYWAY. You didn't even bother to count before you leapt in with your wrong, incorrect un-correction. You saw something you didn't understand, and you went "DEAR GOD IT'S DIFFERENT! THERE'S BEEN AN AWFUL MISTAKE!" You call this method, "Women's intuition." I call it "Being tremendously dense." Now to address your absurd suggestion that I use "your method", aka "The Ladies' method of Autocad." 1. The function definition would stretch over several useless lines for no reason, inhibit reformatting and refactoring, and be an utter waste of time. 2. I would be the laughing stock of the Lisp world. Nobody, NOBODY who writes Lisp puts closing brackets on separate lines, except people who write Autolisp tutorials. 3. Even if there had been a mistake, which there hadn't, my syntax highlighter would have caught it immediately. Fancy that: A program that does your drudgery for you, so you don't have to! Now if only there was a "Dovina-corrector" program!!!1
Re: a comment on MTV's The Real World: Poemranker by Bluemonkey	25-May-05/2:52 PM
You could write about your Floppingtons.
Re: a comment on Nesting Instinct of Women by Dovina	19-May-05/5:23 PM
1. Does your poeme have an actual (true) interpretation? 2. Do you know what it is? There is a great difference between saying "It's possible" when you mean "I don't know" and when you mean "There's a possible world in which it's so." You're implying you mean the latter. But as you say, that's more or less tautological; any interpretation that is not self-contradictory is possible of any given poeme. I think you mean the former, in the vague, wishy-washy sense that "Nobody, not even me, can say what my poemes mean for sure."
Re: a comment on Nesting Instinct of Women by Dovina	19-May-05/3:59 PM
The question makes perfect sense as worded, at least to anyone operating on a cognitive level above that of a pea. Luckily you seem to be operating on a cognitive level similar to that of a sprout, as you have basically got the idea. Ordinarily, when I say "It's a possibility", I mean something like, "There is a possible world in which it's true." Example: It's a possibility that I'm wearing brown jodhpurs <-> In some possible world, I'm wearing brown jodhpurs. Even though I know I'm not wearing brown jodhpurs, it's possible that I am in the sense that there's a possible world in which I am. However, this won't do for all cases. For example: "It's a possibility that Goldbach's conjecture is true." This simply means that I don't know whether it's true. If it happens to be false, then it is false in ALL possible worlds. What do you mean when you say that an interpretation is a possibility? Do you mean you simply don't know? Or do you mean there is a possible world where you, Dovina, wrote this poeme with that interpretation in mind? Or (this is my guess) do you mean it in the vague, wishy-washy sense that "anything's possible when it comes to interpreting poetry"? Or do you mean it in a temporal way: "That interpretation's not true now, but it may be true in the future." Are we strumming on the same fucking banjo yet?
Re: a comment on Nesting Instinct of Women by Dovina	19-May-05/3:19 PM
You really have no clue. MODAL LOGIC DOESN'T EVEN USE TRUTH TABLES. Now. I don't give a fuck if you use symbols or not. If your shrivell'd brain is terrified by symbols and phrases like "modal semantics", I shall rephrase the question in a more kindly way. What does it mean for an interpretation of a poeme to be a "possibility"? Can you answer that without collapsing into a fit of women's hysteria? I do hope so.
Re: a comment on Nesting Instinct of Women by Dovina	19-May-05/2:50 PM
It isn't ambiguous at all: Stop waffling. Let me put it another way. Would you... No, I'll just repeat the question. In what way is it a "possibility"? Give details of your modal semantics. For an example, cram this through your reasoning valve: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-modal/#6 (Of course possible worlds semantics would be utterly duff for this case.)