You have such a way with words.

Weak.

What's so obscure about it? A PERSON IS VERY HUNGRY. THEY COMPARE THE BIG AND LITTLE DIPPERS TO SOUP LADLES. BUT IN FACT THEY ARE NOT SOUP LADES. THEY ONLY MADE THIS COMPARISON BECAUSE THEY HAD MISSED DINNER. hurrr I understand good

CONVENE IN THE CHATCAVE FOR AN EMERGENCY DEBRIEFING.

BRING SPARE BRIEFS.

Yeah; the talented ones, the attention whores and the unstable egomaniacs who make absurd threats at you through a chain of people they barely know.

On the contrary. I am not the antiforce to this site. I have submitted many beautiful poemes that have been adored and cherished by many people. You have submitted two blocks of text that are clearly not poemes.

You and the other recent users (if indeede they be other users) seem to be under the impression that by going on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on about -=Dark_Angel=- you will somehow bring a change to the site. You think that people will start to take notice, that they will join hands and sing a song of banning -=Dark_Angel=-.

Poppycock. The only change that will happen is that you and your bumchums here will receive the poemWanker award. Look around you. Look at my poemes. For centuries I have fought with dullards, scoundrels, knaves, idiots, dunces, fools, cowards, cads, slugabeds, lolligaggers, rastabouts, rogues, rapscallions, ne'er-do-wells, imbeciles and boisterous peasants, and who has been left standing? -=Dark_Angel=-.

My poemes are the graveyards for a thousand dead foes. Weep at the likes of poetie, who valiantly fought against AIDS imagery in creative writing until her untimely death at the hands of the FBI. Look at Yardbird and redneck, pathetic prawns of men who scuttle fearfully about the site, clandestinely posting tedious whines. They are not respected. They are not feared. They are not worshipped in ancient temples under the sea. -=Dark_Angel=- is.

If you know what is good for you, you will stop while you still can. You cannot possibly comprehend the scale of the horrors you are bringing upon yourself. Were you to scour the world's historical accounts for atrocities, you would find nothing the like of what you will witness if you pursue this path. The torments of hell are but an enflamed buttock compared to the trauma you shall be subjected to.

My child, you will weep tears of love for me or you will weep blood. Which is it to be?

Sir,

1. You will address me by my proper Christian name, which is "-=Dark_Angel=-". This is a simple courtesy that I extend to others and that I expect others to extend to me.

2. To say that none of my comments are constructive in the slightest is a gross exaggeration. You will retract this remark.

3. I do not vote all the time, if by "Darky" you mean me, but I have voted on this poeme. I gave it a 10, because it is a work of great beauty and subtlety.

4. Your cannot spell or punctuate. Therefore I can only conclude that you are a Rogue. You will report to the Master's Lodge at three in the afternoon tomorrow for a stern lecture and tea.

I bid you Good Day.

I hate -=Dark_Angel=- because he said my poeme was rubbish and made fun of me because I am a Psychic~Vampyre.

You will hear many things about me, my child. There are certain people who do not wish to hear my views. They are trying to stifle my creativity, crush my soul and destroy my dreams. They are lucky I have not contacted the FBI.

lol! It's from that nursery rhyme lol! You know, the one that goes...

I had a fucking nut tree
Nothing would it bear
But a fucking shoehorn
And a potty chair

What is the sentence with commas supposed to mean? That there was a parson's nose, who was a pirate, who procured a pre-lubricated shoehorn, and the shoehorn glistened? Parson's noses cannot be pirates. Indeede, they may not be pirates.

It's fine to leave out "that".

Which helmet should I rub? The helmet the fireman wears. (equivalent to "the helmet that the fireman wears", not "the helmet, which the fireman wears".)

There is no parson. There is only his nose. And if you had read Gilded Stumps of Olde, you would know perfectly well who the pirate was.

This is great! I can't believe we're having a serious conversation about the lubrication of a shoehorn by a procured parson's nose! It was complete genius of me to use that sentence as the example!!

As for your reply, by the sentence

"The shoehorn the parson's nose the pirate procured lubricated glistened."

I mean that of all the parsons' noses, I am specifically talking about the one that was procured by the pirate. And of all the shoehorns, I specifically mean the one that was lubricated by the aforementioned parson's nose. Moreover, that shoehorn glistened. This is the only possible interpretation of the sentence that makes sense. It is grammatically correct. If you doubt me, Sir, then we shall duel! Or are you a coward?