"I would ask that comments such as the previous not be posted publicly so as not to discourage the more shy who might otherwise have something to add, but hesitate for fear of reprisal from users whom they would criticize."

There are too many negations in that sentence. May I not be disallowed from suggesting the following, less daft alternative?

"Comments such as the previous may discourage shy users from contributing."

You raving frankfurter of idiocy. For pity's sake what's your problem? This is poemeranker. A site for ranking poemes. And if you post your poemes on a site for ranking poemes, then presumably you want your poemes to be ranked? Presumably you want other people to read the work you have smeared into the public domain and give you their honest opinion of it? Isn't that what you want? No. You just want people to mindlessly praise everything you do. You grotesque urchin.

I bet it's a rubbish song. I bet your friend is rubbish.

Dunce. You post a comment listing the COMPLEATE LIST OF BUNCOMBE DODGES on someone's poeme, in reply to one of their comments, and then get all uppity when, surprise, surprise, they think you were talking about them. For pity's sake zodiac, how dare you? If someone replies to your comment, by default they are talking to you, and are posting their thoughts there for a specific reason. How dare you have the gall to suggest that cat has an inflated notion of self-importance, or whatever, just because she thought you were staining her jodhpurs?

P.S. "INVETERATE" is the mark of a top-notch dullard.

It will be -=Dark_Angel=-, P.I.

Why are you unbelievable nincompo'ops using Word to write plain text? Would you drive an aeroplane down the street to buy a News-paper? Yes, you would. And then you would log onto an Internet driving forum and complain that your car's wings kept "bumping into trees".

I don't want you to leave. I want you to post another leaving rant, storm off in a huff, then come back again, then post another poeme full of ellipses, then be mocked to the point of lunacy, then reply to all the abuse with "Your Friend, Doug" as you desperately try to rise above all the immaturity on this site, then have another breakdown, then post a leaving rant, then storm off in a huff, then come back again, then write a poeme about 'the cognitive dissonance which may well be an inherent part of trying to rationally justify why one who has lived a life of moral excellence, yet who is unsaved, "should be expected to" spend an eternity in Hell', then collapse in a giant shower of guff and pulped yams. And I want you to keep doing that. But that's merely for my own amusement, and perhaps not in your own best interest.

For pity's sake, doug: we both know I'm not trying to help you become a better poete. If you do become a better poete, then that is incidental. All I care about is issues.

You're such a fag.

And preferably travelling away at a significant portion of the speed of light, so that there was a Doppler effect on the sound of the poem.

Excellent! Having accepted my feedback as both honest and insightful, what are you going to do about it? And I just wanted to tell you that your last few pieces(poemes) have been unbelievably appalling. Thanks,

Your Friend,

Doug

I can't even be bothered to help others :(

What you should be apologising for is this appallingly stupid conversation, not your utter failure of a life. But thanks anyway!