Re: a comment on O Endless Angst, Thou Stingeth Me by Goad	18-Jan-04/12:26 PM
Coleridge? Quite unintentional, dear fellow. The only Coleridge I've read are the two big ones, when I was perhaps 15. Pome is an affectation. It means, don't worry I don't actually take myself (or anyone else) (too) seriously.
Re: a comment on The Blues by fevriere	12-Jan-04/3:41 PM
I'm sure she meant figuratively, she was just being coy. I like that.
Re: a comment on Fake Happiness by WithoutLife	12-Jan-04/3:37 PM
umm...you do realize everyone is more than one person? Although everyone is not, strictly speaking, EVERYone, everyone is already a significant percentage of everyone THAT MATTERS. I myself am not everyone, yet, though I probably will be at some point. You shouldn't criticize everyone too harshly, because you yourself might end up being everyone some day.
Re: a comment on The Blues by fevriere	12-Jan-04/2:16 PM
watch out or you'll also be quavering, you old goat.
Re: a comment on Prepropositioned pudding by Jeremi B. Handrinos	12-Jan-04/1:51 AM
prepropositioned gets one google, it's been (mis)used before, by someone in the navy crapparoni gets two googles, one by a very cute 17-year old somewhere in the midwest regretable gets 5700 googles, it's a common misspelling, and this particular semantic misuse of the word is also regrettably common, as I'm sure you intended. infomasturbatory, however, appears to be brand new. I compliment you. I hope it enters the lexicon, it's a tremendously fabulous word.
Re: New commandments by little_big_nose	12-Jan-04/1:40 AM
There's a goth that forgets all his u's When he rants at the folk in their pews But if you can't spell Than even in hell You'll get nothing from us but abuse.
Re: Fireplay by drjhoss	3-Jan-04/1:42 PM
ok, let me see if I got this: You (a slave with a master) were playing with matches under a lark's nest, the fire got a little out of hand and people started singing, their chorus drowning out the chirping of the lark as everyone rushed to and fro trying to put the fire out. You realized that once again you screwed up, because every time play with fire without your master's supervision, you accidentally set larks' nests on fire. You're so confused now that you forget how to get home so you hope your loving master will show up and show you the path so you can go home where he will care for you, but you're pretty sure he will make you crawl home begging. Pardon me, but WHAT THE HELL are you TALKING about??? Are you, like, some kind of bdsm scene person who sets fires and then gets their "master" to spank them for it? Is this a fetish poem? I don't get it.
Re: a comment on Whose God? by elizabethann	3-Jan-04/10:46 AM
yes, maybe the two of you can squat together in a blind corner with your trousers down and have g/God suck both your asses at once.
Re: a comment on Where was god? by little_big_nose	3-Jan-04/10:35 AM
Sir, I believe you'll be delighted to discover that Pomeranker Trousers stay well-hoisted with minimum effort, even when one is not naturally well-endowed with the appropriate protuberances. You just pin them up with the little orange wings they come with.
Re: a comment on Where was god? by little_big_nose	3-Jan-04/9:51 AM
I don't think we need have any question about the duncitude of our bittle_nig_lose. But you sir, with your last sentence have at least temporarily earned yourself a genuine pair of brandname Pomeranker Trousers.
Re: Eating My Soul by little_big_nose	3-Jan-04/8:53 AM
I'm trying to parse the first stanza and I would like to know if I got it right. I'll add in the conjunctive phrases I am using to provide an interpretation in square brackets: [while]Eating my soul[,] Your touch is so cold [that] I thought you meant [to eat] everything [but instead] You [have] made it into a whole lot of NOTHING [making the exercise of having my soul eaten seem somewhat pointless since it no longer exists] Ok, I know that last bit is a little more than a conjunctive phrase, but did I get it more or less right? Thanks.
Re: a comment on Where was god? by little_big_nose	3-Jan-04/8:46 AM
I am deeply aware of and well-versed in both sides of the "contradiction between the existence of a benevolent, all-powerful Jesu and the existence of suffering," also known as the Argument from Evil. My entire family are fundamentalist pentecostals, many of them preachers, as well as most of my extended family. I know my bible & I know my atheism, since my atheism didn't come lightly but was purchased at great emotional & social cost. I disagree entirely that this poem is discussing the Argument from Evil in a meaningful way. I question whether the author has thought it through that far. "Will god ever be there When I really need someone to care? Or will god just run Just like he has always done?" These are the words of someone angry at a god they want to exist for not answering there pleas, not the words of someone discussing the Argument from Evil for atheism. Do I get my trousers back now?
Re: a comment on Where was god? by little_big_nose	3-Jan-04/8:34 AM
I wasn't in a huff, I was being droll. Ok, attempting to be droll. So here's a clear answer: I am atheist. And I think this poem is eye-rollingly stupid, because it is essentially saying "god sucks because he doesn't exist." My post was baiting him because that's an annoying habit I have, baiting people I think are being stupid. Result: he went and crapped on one of my pomes in a way that amused me. So, it was a profitable baiting. Alles klar?
Re: I smell coffee by Princess_Snowflake	3-Jan-04/7:37 AM
Oh YES baby. This coffee, it VIBRATES? Seriously I don't care how many rules this poem breaks I love it. It is robust, exuberant, with an innocent aftertaste of blossoms, full of body. And full of metaphorical body, or at least i read it that way, but I'm just an old lech. I COULD NOT STOP thinking "blowjob" the whole way through. I WANT TO BE COFFEE!!!! Can I be coffee, can I please please? KEEP going snowflake, I think you are the next Princess Bukowski.
Re: Haiku 2004 by Princess_Snowflake	3-Jan-04/7:29 AM
This is absolutely briliant. Though I suspect the use of "the" in line two was incidentall, and intended only to achieve sylable count, the result is nevertheles startlingly evocative.
Re: a comment on Where was god? by little_big_nose	3-Jan-04/7:15 AM
I think it's permissible to mock people for expressing either love OR hatred of g/God. But I think it's NECESSARY to mock people for saying g/God sucks because he doesn't exist. That's just stupid.
Re: a comment on Where was god? by little_big_nose	3-Jan-04/7:13 AM
Questions of whether a particular post by a particular poster is intended to be taken at face value or as satire, sarcasm, irony, or double entendre can generally be quickly resolved by perusing said poster's posting history. If you're unable to find enough clues in the text itself to resolve your uncertainty, this may be a necessary step for you.
Re: a comment on O Death by lastobelus	2-Jan-04/7:02 PM
Oooh COOL, my poem is JUST LIKE SEX. The parenting part is pointless, it's kind of messy, and other than that very good. :) Thank you.
Re: a comment on O Death by lastobelus	2-Jan-04/6:55 PM
dude, if that was coherent it would probably be blasphemous. You should watch that; I heard they were going to start sending blasphemers to Faith-Based Rehabilitiation Kamps. I mean Camps. You should relax. Don't take life so seriously. Think of it as a big game of Paintball. But, you know, SINGLE-SHOT Paintball. Pick a target and paintball it. None of this 3000 round hoppers & compressed air tanks on the back and running out into the middle of the field and hosing everything with an incoherent splatter of pink paint shit. Sheesh. That's just silly.
Re: Where was god? by little_big_nose	2-Jan-04/6:24 PM
He was HANGING ON THE CROSS bleeding his guts out so that...so that, um, SO HIS FATHER COULD LET YOU INTO HEAVEN instead of having to send you to ETERNAL DAMNATION, you ungrateful clod. Don't be deceived by letting SATAN MAKE YOU THINK THERE's SO MUCH EMPHASIS on this physical plane. God is concerned with our SOULS not with our PHYSICAL BODIES. Sometimes what he IS FORCED TO DO TO COMBAT SATAN and save our ETERNAL SOULS is hard for us to understand with our emphasis on EARTHLY CONCERNS. Since your cousin OD'd she's DEFINITELY GOING TO HELL, but maybe if she'd lived 10 years longer she would have had two little babies and DECEIVED THEM INTO HELL TOO!!!!! So God had to take her now to SAVE THE BABIES FROM HELL!!!! Who are YOU to QUESTION GOD?