Re: On Youth Revisited by vulcan	2-Nov-04/5:48 AM
'I wash my face/ and water splash' means you wash a water splash. Punctuation needed methinks.
Re: Ash by horus8	2-Nov-04/5:44 AM
'Nothing earned, and nothing gained' is a bit of a wasted line. The initials bit is cliche. Other than that well written, sounds great.
Re: My Poison ( Vodka ) by Brittanyy	2-Nov-04/5:42 AM
'feel the shame' about vomitting seems a bit over the top. If getting pissed is cool then so is vomitting it back up again. Also 'now you lay in the flame' seems an odd line to use. It would probably be more meaningful if you were talking about a drink it is traditional to set fire to and drink. Just a thought.
Re: Fascists by Imago	2-Nov-04/5:37 AM
The lines 1-4 set up an expectation of a certain rhythm. And then lines 5-10 use a different rhythm. It all makes the poem difficult to read. I would at least split it into two verses. 'all are we' at the end is an inversion purely to make the poem rhyme. Such behaviour is very wrong. Playing with peoples expectations of where rhymes are to be can work very well. But you must beware that it does not always work. Rather than talking of fascists as you giving the definitive statement it would be better if a character in the poem was saying it. Telling us with your first two lines about fascists (in trees under logs) makes you sound kind of paranoid.
Re: a comment on Ending by Dovina	1-Nov-04/1:44 PM
Contentedness is quite unattractive to poets. It seems the more you learn the harder it is to actually finish a poem. Then someone like Dan garcia Black, who doesn't know much and hence writes loads of poems, claims that the only thing that seperates him from a good poet is that a good poet has a thesaurus. The good poet does have a thesaurus. He wants to smack Dan garcia-Black over the head with it.
Re: a comment on Call upon the wrath of god on ye by Imago	31-Oct-04/5:13 AM
Then we are back to where we started. By 'no blooms we see from those deflowered' what you mean is that those who lose there innocence never show the same vitality again. That is as specific as the metaphor allows. Therefore you are saying that all non-virgins have no vitality. The metaphor also implies that the a 'deflowered' flower will never bloom again. This is incorrect. This is an example of the problem with the poem. Metaphors must be tight, they must track, this one is literally redundant (the way you mean it) and open to misinterpretation (the way the reader reads it). What I am saying is no different from what any other member of a poetry site will say. The use of excessively archaic language when the poem works without is a no-no. Metaphors that are open to misinterpretation are not good metaphors. Also when I said published, I meant a piece that a respectable publisher would put in their magazine. 'Whilst the bells ring' has a good last verse but the title alone would be enough to get an editor to throw the poem in the bin.
Re: a comment on Call upon the wrath of god on ye by Imago	31-Oct-04/4:46 AM
I think it is ace that an angel's lack of genitalia can define its masculinity. Well done. But how do you sing.
Re: Ending by Dovina	30-Oct-04/1:24 PM
This is the best of yours I have read. It leads the reader with its images rather than making general statements which it can't support (your biggest weakness in other poems). Pinon planter was good as well. You can not have a -10- because I don't give -10-'s. Have a -9-
Re: a comment on Call upon the wrath of god on ye by Imago	30-Oct-04/8:10 AM
There is not a single piece of poetry published in the last hundreds years that is written in an archaic manner for no reason. Look in any poetry journal or magazine. Poetry is about communication. Why sabbotage your own poem by being so convoluted. What you seem to have done here is to think of an idea then substitute prosaic words (the idea) for poetic words (the poem). For instance: "no blooms we see from those deflowered". The reason I interpreted it as once you chop the heads off flowers they never flower again (which would be incorrect) is because otherwise all you are saying is flowers which have had their flowers taken away are not flowering which is a tautology. Why say it.
Re: a comment on Mississippi Burnin. by SupremeDreamer	14-Aug-04/9:44 AM
1) 'This isn't about PC at all is it, this is about you thinking you are better than everyone else and the frustration you feel for being forced to cohabitate with people who are obviously inferior to a high IQ having, A-level taking, smart, logical, human like you.' yes. 2) '“Most” is a save, oh wait if I put little numbers on the side will that make it more true...anyway most is a save, people only use most, so if a person counters and says, "hey well I know for a fact that people in Istanbul don't think that way." you can say, "oh I said most, so I don't have to address that anomaly."' By saying most, the inference is 'not all'. That is a statement without 'savers' as you would put it. 3) 'Look UK human with a high IQ (yeah i know that you don't have a high IQ, you are bordering on being mentally challenged you were simply saying that to prove a point, damn me, damn me, damn me)' Well done, you spotted the clause 'if I said'. Unfortunately you seem to believe that by making the 'if' clause, the opposite must be true (bordering on mentally challenged). Shame you had to undo the good work. 4) 'I'm surprised you would get so angry about possibly being thought of as a racist, since everyone around you is, oh pardon me, most people around you.' This assumes the only problem one would have with being called racist is how the majority of people would react to such a label. This has no grounding in logic. 5) Common sense is merely what you are said to have when you agree with people who have rubbish a-levels and/or degrees.
Re: a comment on Mississippi Burnin. by SupremeDreamer	14-Aug-04/9:23 AM
You are in no position to judge who is smart and who is not. You are unable to separate hypothetical (i.e. if .... is .... then....) from the concrete. This is no surprise as cats have no neo-cortex and are as such incapable of reasoning.
Re: a comment on Mississippi Burnin. by SupremeDreamer	14-Aug-04/9:17 AM
'I guess no one told you that is not the case' Did you interview more than fifty percent of the population to arrive at this statement then. Disclaimer: This would be the logical conclusion had what you said about me not having known most of the population meaning I can not judge how well liked minorities are. This reasoning should not be attached to the author of the comment and further argument toward the man should be avoided.
Re: a comment on Mississippi Burnin. by SupremeDreamer	14-Aug-04/8:45 AM
1) Most is not a save. Unless you expect me to say everyone hates homos even the homos. 2) Ever heard the concept of a sample. For instance if I was to measure reaction times to different stimuli, I may test 300 people. If the sample is representative the findings can be inferred as though everyone in the uk was tested. It is a bit like saying my IQ is in the top 1% of the UK population. Would your reply be only in the uk? Mine is in the top 2% in the world. 3) At no point did I say I agreed with them. So you can add poor comprehension skills to your list of dunceton-ness. 4) Scratch my futon again and I will break your leg (it is ok cats are not sentient).
Re: a comment on Mississippi Burnin. by SupremeDreamer	14-Aug-04/7:50 AM
Oh how wonderfully insightful. Well let me instead be inciteful. Noeone thinks you are a jerk if you use anti-semitic, homophobic, racist, sexist remarks. Most people will agree with you. That is why it is 'political' correctness. Nothing changed in attitude with its invent. It just became illegal to call a spade a spade.
Re: a comment on Mississippi Burnin. by SupremeDreamer	14-Aug-04/3:01 AM
Of course personality depends on being conscious. Personality is what informs our reactions to the environment. That is what consciousness is for. To help us organise our behaviour outside the strictly hard wired - 'eat the brown berries in the forest, get bad tummy' I dropped a caterpillar in a bowl of water, it wriggled around a lot (it was hardly going to survive). Should I attribute that to its tenacious personality. It is not conscious.
Re: a comment on Mississippi Burnin. by SupremeDreamer	13-Aug-04/2:41 PM
'If you attempt to argue that personality is a product of the soul, and not of the brain, then consider this: if you jab a pencil into someone's frontal lobes, their personality changes.' Yet more science-trite. How about someone is deprived of consciousness and only understands at the information processing level. How then does his personality change by jabbing his frontal lobe. Surely it is only his behaviour than can be said to change. Also why do you talk about soul and brain as though seperate entities?
Re: a comment on Mississippi Burnin. by SupremeDreamer	13-Aug-04/2:23 PM
'the fact is' makes you sound a dunce. The bell curve controversy was such fun wasn't it. They found out black peoples IQ's were a standard deviation lower than white peoples IQ's. And also that when you put a rag over a mongoloid babie face he was calm, do the same to a negroid and he has a hissy fit. Anyway there is an argument to say that differences in intelligence are only as relevant as differences in hair curliness. That is to say the purpose of evolution is to create a fit with the evolutionary environment.
Re: a comment on Mississippi Burnin. by SupremeDreamer	13-Aug-04/2:13 PM
I am afraid I don't have this thing you call common sense. I just have a dustbin full of a-levels. I wish I was common like you.
Re: a comment on Niggers Don't Write Poetry by pain killer	12-Aug-04/1:24 PM
That is ok, are you Luther Blissett?
Re: A fish, or what's left of one by phbiscuit	12-Aug-04/5:58 AM
Seems to read ok. The ending is a bit abrupt though. Some of the language is a bit unsubtle (indestructable fate).