Re: a comment on The Other Side of Me by Quarton	24-Jan-03/7:31 AM
Thanks for the kind words. Probably most poets can relate to the "other side" though I was not sure I conveyed this adequately. I guess for some, I did.
Re: a comment on The Other Side of Me by Quarton	24-Jan-03/7:24 AM
Thank you vulcan. I really wasn't sure on this one and am pleased you liked it. My other side thinks I revealed too much but he has always been rather paranoid:)
Re: Fall by morffrom	21-Jan-03/9:36 AM
Short and sweet but it doesn't do much for me personally. Still, not bad and with an interesting theme.
Re: A Gift of Beauty... by loneshadow29	21-Jan-03/9:34 AM
A bit too mawkish for my taste but I am sure some will like it. Also, too many cliches like: your radiant beauty.... melt with only your smile.... dark sea of turmoil.... gaze upon your beauty.... etc...etc.
Re: Trespasser at the Men's Bathing Pond by Christof	21-Jan-03/9:28 AM
I like this. Very original and good rhythm. The form is different, using 6 lines per stanza and a couplet rhyme scheme. Interesting piece and deserves a high number.
Re: a comment on The Militarization of America by Quarton	20-Jan-03/4:17 PM
You are, of course, right on with your critique. I may attempt to salvage this but will probably let it fade away into "nothingness."
Re: a comment on The Golden Rule by Quarton	19-Jan-03/8:45 AM
Well, I admit that my knowledge of quantum mechanics is conceptual and not formal or involving mathematics. I leave that to the physicists. And regarding the "quantum world", I realize many writers and reviews on the subject tend towards hyperbole and misinterpretation. I also become weary of all the pseudo science and mystical posturing that is so prevalent. I recall Stephen Hawking mentioned this in one of his books, distancing himself from the crowd you have previously mentioned. Personally, cosmology is the most profound and interesting subject I have encountered over the years and, like you, hate to see it cheapened by supposed experts who senationalize the field with a lot of nonsense in order to appeal to the many simple-minded and uninformed readers who believe such claptrap. But, perhaps they gain some insight into the quantum world and that is probably better than being totally ignorant on the subject. Then again, who was that who said a little knowledge can be dangerous? I thought you might like a little limerick I wrote recently: There once was a theorist named Einstein, the universe he sought to redefine. He wrote of relativity while hiding his proclivity for reading his astrological sign.
Re: Nightshades by Bachus	19-Jan-03/7:36 AM
Forgot to ask...Just what brand of aquavitae are you referring to? I might try some if it isn't over 100 proof. Hell, I'll try some regardless. The stronger the better.
Re: Nightshades by Bachus	19-Jan-03/7:30 AM
Bravo, sir!! A difficult form to master but you have done so in this gem. Personally, I don't even attempt to write vilanelles. Much too stuctured and very hard to write without sounding forced. A ten.
Re: lost dreams by dylansong	19-Jan-03/7:19 AM
I liked this but it needs editing. Too much redundancy and needless fill words. One example: "Night turning today, day to turning to night....The day dreams turning into nightmares....The cycle of madness never ending....Every day starting over and over.... Perhaps this would work better: "Night turning to day; day to night....Day dreams becoming nightmares....The cycle of madness never ending....Each day like the one before...." If tightened a bit, the makings of an excellent poem.
Re: A little song by kawakurdi	19-Jan-03/6:56 AM
Not bad. Short and sweet. Typo in last line. For ever should be forever.
Re: a comment on The Golden Rule by Quarton	18-Jan-03/8:44 AM
Perhaps you might tell him he is, in your opinion, over-rated as a physicist. I am sure that would make his day. And though I admire his tenacity and courage in coping with his debilitating disease, I admire his work even more. And "The God Particle" by Leon Lederman is not rubbish. One quote concerning his book, "The book proves that a monumental intellect, complete with requisite mussed white hair and A NOBEL PRIZE, can relate theory and experimentation without being a monumental bore..." Also, it is one of the funniest books I have ever read and for pure wit, it is quite engaging. I bet if you read it, you would be laughing out loud. So don't be a sourpuss, you could use a good laugh and might even learn something.
Re: a comment on The Golden Rule by Quarton	17-Jan-03/7:32 PM
You're telling me you watched "Gangs of New York" with Stephen Hawking? Right!!!And I'm the Tooth Fairy. And you are dead wrong in saying his fame is a result of being in a wheel chair. I have idolized him for years and his work in theoretical physics far transcends his physical problems. Simply put, I believe him to be one of the truly great thinkers of all time. And this with a disease that would have long since buried any normal man. Oj yeah, tell stephen I said hello.
Re: a comment on The Golden Rule by Quarton	17-Jan-03/12:43 PM
I go back to your earlier statement that logic does not change or become inadequate. In fact, it does both when dealing with the quantum world and that is all I am saying. Understand that I am talking about classical logic and not quantum logic. Bell's theorem and quantum logic have much in common. The most exciting in my opinion is together, they show a reality where all parts of the universe are connected in a very real and immediate way. Such concepts are where my interests lie and I am tired of arguing with you. Light has a dual nature, (particle and wave) and it is beyond the capabilities of ordinary logic to understand. (remember the law of contradiction?) So enough is enough. Have a nice day, dipshit:)
Re: a comment on The Golden Rule by Quarton	17-Jan-03/9:29 AM
First, I apologize for the harsh words. They are very atypical and uncalled for in a debate such as ours. That said, yes, logic is indeed prima facie but you offer no prima facie evidence to substantiate your premise. Again, how can you claim the dual nature of say, a photon being both a particle and a wave. This dualism completely negates Aristotelian logic as a means to resolve the paradox. Logic is a tool used to understand our perceived realities by valid inference. So, please explain to me logically how there can be a nine dimensional space as postulated in string theory. In speaking to such a state, logic is useless in resolving or understanding it. Even the physicists who diabolically conjure up such concepts admit they cannot be understood intellectually or logically. So again, logic has its place but is useless in some instances such as string theory and yes, the dual nature of photons.
Re: a comment on The Golden Rule by Quarton	17-Jan-03/6:38 AM
Talk about arrogant! You give the word new meaning. So my books are rubbish, are they? Stephen Hawking is widely regarded as the most accomplished experimental physicist since Einstein. The Chicago Tribune stated, "The story of a remarkable man, Destined to rank with Galileo, Newton and Einstein." Only one of many accolades for this incredible man who has suffered from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis since 1962. Neither Putman nor Dummett could hold his jockstrap. "Light is light" is it. Your logic is quite overwhelming. Thus far, you have said nothing that even vaguely supports your misguided perceptions regarding the dual characteristics of light. My books may sound like rubbish to you but such a statememt is typical of those who disparage a person or thing out of ignorance and a closed mind. So, fuck off, turkey.
Re: a comment on The Golden Rule by Quarton	16-Jan-03/5:00 PM
Got me! I don't have a clue.... Perhaps my favorite book on quantum mechanics is by an experimental physicist, Leon Lederman. The title is "The God Particle"and the guy really knows his physics. It is quite long and very funny in parts. You have surely read Hawking and his, "Black Holes and Baby Universes", is excellent. Also, "Stephen Hawking's Universe", a fairly small book, is outstanding. There are many others but the above are my favorites. If you like far out type books, try either Capra, "The Tao of Physics" or Zukhov, "The Dancing Wu Li Masters."
Re: a comment on The Golden Rule by Quarton	15-Jan-03/9:32 AM
I did not say logic is wrong because of light's interactions. What I am saying is in quantum terms, we are dealing with a nonsensory experience of reality, a state where logic and reason no longer apply. Your statement that "light is light" seems rather obvious, (what is, is) However, light is or assumes the characteristics of both a particle and a wave. Particle is wave...wave is particle. The fact that light can be both a particle and, at the same time, a wave is central to quantum mechanics and again, defies logic and reason as we perceive them to be. I would be happy to recommend several books on the subject but, bottom line, you are wrong in saying these concepts are not beyond logical capabilities.
Re: a comment on The Golden Rule by Quarton	15-Jan-03/8:14 AM
Well, I must respectfully disagree. Is it not illogical for a photon to be both a particle and a wave simultaneously? I recall Aristotle and the law of contradiction, (A cannot be both A and not A) From a quantum perspective, a photon cannot be both a particle and not a particle but it is.
Re: a comment on The Golden Rule by Quarton	15-Jan-03/8:07 AM