Re: a comment on The follies befalling an unfledged street poet. by SupremeDreamer	8-May-04/3:32 PM
Because it is brimming with wisdom and beauty -10-
Re: a comment on The follies befalling an unfledged street poet. by SupremeDreamer	8-May-04/10:56 AM
because it doesn't deserve a nine
Re: Vodka kisses & the final sigh, v.II (bloody vodka remix) by SupremeDreamer	8-May-04/10:24 AM
Wipe that stupid smile off your bum-like face, hand your badge back to the commissioner, get the hell out of my office, and for Christ's sake put some clothes on :( -10-
Re: a comment on The follies befalling an unfledged street poet. by SupremeDreamer	8-May-04/10:15 AM
WHY DIDN'T YOU GIVE THIS POEME A -10- HMM?
Re: The follies befalling an unfledged street poet. by SupremeDreamer	8-May-04/3:32 AM
Along with horus8, you seem to delight in the notion that you're constantly leaping forward poetically and spiritually, unaware that you've merely enrolled in yet another new school of guff. -10-
Re: a comment on nothingtoanyone by Everyone	7-May-04/4:45 PM
"bum-like face" is now the default -=Dark_Angel=- insult.
Re: California triolets by zodiac	7-May-04/7:26 AM
If she really was reading Lawrence, then "assurance" is bow'ls because you only chose it to rhyme with what she happened to be reading. But if she wasn't reading Lawrence, then the whole poeme is UTTERLY MORALLY BANKRUPT.
Re: a comment on deviant conveniences by J.B. Manning	6-May-04/10:14 AM
That's because no one can define "consciousness" clearly. Yet you use it willy-nilly, blundering on with absolute certainty that "consciousness" and "spirituality" are the source of a poete's creativity. Not only do you have no evidence for that stance, your stance isn't even clearly defined - not even in your own mind. It is therefore the stance of a squatting dutchman, and you'll forgive me, I hope, if I bid you and your buttocks good day, lest I too become soiled beyond belief. Good day.
Re: a comment on deviant conveniences by J.B. Manning	5-May-04/2:57 PM
What you're saying isn't relevant. The question isn't, and has never been, whether something "really, really" can be verified to be true. It's obvious and uninteresting that most things can't. The point about verification and falsification is the unwillingness of soul-believers to name verification and falsification conditions. If you'd taken any time at all to read the discussion before leaping in with your dreamy proclamations, you'd have seen that. The question is: Are soul believers prepared to give observable conditions C such that if C obtain they will stop believing in souls; if so, what are they, and if not, why not? That's not a question to you, by the way. It's a question to the soul-believers, e.g. Joe-Joe. Who probably won't even read this.
Re: a comment on deviant conveniences by J.B. Manning	5-May-04/9:57 AM
No, the real problem starts with colons like you. You are unwilling or unable to develop an argument beyond one or two mystical lines which are too vague to be properly argued about, so you just sprinkle as many of these about as possible. Please stop.
Re: Where Have All the Punk Rockers Gone? by wilco	4-May-04/4:07 PM
LET'S SEE YOU DAAAAAANCE SUCKA YOU GOT NOTHIN ON ME
Re: Gothic by zodiac	3-May-04/3:14 PM
If you would just write some gruesome short stories, that would be 10 times more ace than this poetry fiddle-faddle.
Re: a comment on deviant conveniences by J.B. Manning	3-May-04/3:12 PM
Is she also gay?
Re: a comment on Black Belt by etherealmaiden	3-May-04/10:38 AM
Except that my name isn't 'Dark Angel', it's '-=Dark_Angel=-'. I went to the trouble of legally changing it, so you might as well get it right.
Re: a comment on Black Belt by etherealmaiden	3-May-04/10:37 AM
Yes. That is exactly true.
Re: Black Belt by etherealmaiden	3-May-04/9:26 AM
I'd quite like it if you tightened the belt around your hands.
Re: a comment on deviant conveniences by J.B. Manning	3-May-04/9:25 AM
To say something is unverifiable isn't to say that all possible attempts to prove it would fail. It's to say there are no well-defined observation conditions for its truth, and therefore that the idea of an attempt to prove it true is meaningless. As you know from reading Ayer. Obviously it's a bit of a buncombe notion, which is why you have to have falsifiability as well.
Re: a comment on deviant conveniences by J.B. Manning	3-May-04/7:58 AM
Claptrap. I don't allow for the possibility that a machine could 'detect and measure' an atom. The notion of 'detecting an atom' is really the notion of 'making some observations which, in my model, are explained by the notion of an atoms.' If a soul-believer claimed he had a machine which could detect a soul, he wouuld have to specify what observations the machine was making when it gave a positive. He has three options: 1. Tautology: "It is observing a soul." Buncombe. 2. Mysticism: "It is detecting something that is otherwise undetectable to humans." Buncombe. 3. A proper answer: "It is measuring X observable quantity." If 3, then I say, "Oh, is that all you meant by 'a soul'?" He then has two replies: 1. "Yes, that's all," in which case I say "So you've just given a funny mystical name to the observation of X?" He replies, "But that's just what you've done with an atom." I say, "Yes, an atom is just a funny name for talking about certain observations." 2. "No, but it's an unmistakable sign that a soul is nearby." in which case I say, "But how can you distinguish between this pattern of X spontaneously appearing, and this pattern of X being caused by a soul?" He then has two replies: 1. "This pattern can't appear except when a soul is near," in which case I say, "How can you tell?", and he says "Because every time I've measured it, my machine has detected a soul!!" 2. "There is no difference; that's what a soul is," in which case I reply "So a soul is just a funny name for X?" etc. Q.E.D.
Re: a comment on deviant conveniences by J.B. Manning	3-May-04/7:55 AM
bow'ls
Re: a comment on deviant conveniences by J.B. Manning	3-May-04/7:02 AM
The notion that negroes have souls is a common misconception that came about after the famous 'soul experiments' conducted by Dr E. Carawax in the early 19th Century. Dr Carawax had developed a series of special boothes that could measure the aura emanating from any object or person placed within. Dr Carawax believed that this 'aura' constituted the object's soul. Clearly inanimate objects had no auras, but after placing himself in the boothe, Dr Carawax found that he had an aura of 2,000! In later experiments, he tested one of his household negroes, locking him in the boothe while the thermo-nuclear Christ blankets accelerated to terminal glockenspiel velocity. To Carawax's horror, his device measured a negro-aura of well over 5,000 morals per square inch! However, it was later discovered that the negro had been breaking wind in his boothe for several hours, and that this had sent the halo-mounted spirit levels tumbling like urchins into a land of cock and bosh.