Re: We Do Not Write About by faithmairee	13-Mar-06/9:07 AM
Stop writing about what you don't know. Or do. I don't care.
Re: Mango Pickle by amanda_dcosta	16-Mar-06/8:16 AM
Much of Salman Rushdie's novel Midnight's Children is about mango pickle. You must have picked up on the same vibe.
Re: Numbers In Heaven by Dovina	23-Mar-06/8:31 AM
"Later he saw Jesus move from tree to tree in the back of his mind, a wild ragged figure motioning him to turn around and come off into the dark, where he was not sure of his footing, where he suddenly might be walking on water and not know it and then suddenly know it and drown." - Flannery O'Connor
Re: A Fish is Always a Fish by Dovina	27-Mar-06/3:25 PM
A fish is an animal that lives in a brook. He can't write his name or read a book. To fool the humans is his only thought, And even though he's slippery, he still gets caught. So you better watch out for what you wish: You could grow up to be a fish.
Re: Behind the storm clouds, the moon consoles the sun.(edited) by ALChemy	30-Mar-06/1:38 PM
Blake.
Re: Because You Love Me by amanda_dcosta	30-Mar-06/1:39 PM
This is sweet. I would delete the word "me" almost every time it appears, though.
Re: SHOT by tisa7	30-Mar-06/1:40 PM
"me" doesn't rhyme with "already." Sorry, that probably makes you want to die even more.
Re: Quiet Hands by Sunny	30-Mar-06/1:42 PM
Clocks should almost never be used in poetry. Especially not as symbols of time stopping or moving on.
Re: 9/11 - The Jumpers by Caducus	30-Mar-06/1:44 PM
This is full of bad language, mixed metaphors, and factual errors. Also, ending a poem with a question is never a good idea.
Re: Sarah, Freefalling (twee for AlChemy) by ecargo	30-Mar-06/1:46 PM
Not bad. I would shorten or tweak the "brothers" line and end the sentence after "walls". The internal rhyme in the first stanza is especially good.
Re: Time Thief by Dovina	30-Mar-06/1:48 PM
The weird half-rhymes in the first stanza are good. The repetition of "time" at the ends of lines is not. Nor is the digression about Islamic cartoonists. The last stanza's tidy, didactic, silly, Benjamin Franklinesque, and unnecessary if you'd done your job in the first four stanzas.
Re: The Battle of Fort Bragg by Dovina	7-Apr-06/1:00 PM
In the philosophy of religion Occam's Razor is sometimes used to challenge arguments for the existence of God: if there is no need for a "God" (to explain the universe), then the God construct is subject to elimination via Occam's Razor. An example of such an argument would take this form: we have a set of models which does a good job of predicting various aspects of our experience (theories from physics, biology, psychology, etc.). Taken together these constitute a larger model of our overall experience, call it a World model. Elements (sub-models) of this World model which do not contribute to the precision or improve the accuracy of the model should be "cut away" with Occam's Razor. Given this foundation it can be seen that World models including God have an extra element that does not improve accuracy or precision. A common response is that God can "simplify" the world model, for instance by providing a less complex explanation of the origin of species via creationism (i.e. even though we are adding the God-submodel we are removing a more complicated "evolution" model achieving a simpler theory). Concurrently, some over-simplify Ockham's principles as meaning "the easiest explanation must be correct" and argue that given the complexity of the Universe and the extremely small chance that it would have developed this way simply by a series of accidents, there must be a driving force that built the universe to be so complex. However, such arguments are problematic on at least two counts (aside from describing natural processes as "accidents"). First, the "evolution model" is simply a way of describing the emergent properties of simpler theories of biochemistry (DNA replication and control of biological systems), probability theory (inevitable errors in complex systems such as DNA replication, the differential replication rates of traits and genes with differing effects on survival and reproduction). Evolutionary biology introduces nothing (no new entities or hypothetical constructs) that are not already present in these more basic sciences/processes. It simply produces a theoretical system that enables us to perceive the patterns that these basic processes produce. Just as the notion of an ocean wave is not a phenomenon/concept requiring any new, hypothesized elements other than the behavior of many water molecules, wave theories enable us to see patterns and make predictions about the aggregate behavior of many molecules. The God model, unlike evolution theory, introduces a truly new, unrelated element to the explanatory system. Occam's Razor can shave away the God concept without affecting any of the basic concepts of science. If we try to cut away evolution theory, we have to shave away an enormous amount of knowledge about the world, as evolution theory is just a name for the patterns basic processes produce. Second, the evolution model and the patterns it enables us to see has produced countless accurate predictions that would not be possible without the theory. Critics who claim the two models are equal do not take into account that the evolution sub-model is necessary for accuracy and precision (for instance the evolution models makes many good predictions about where we will find various kinds of fossils). Since removing the evolution sub-model reduces the accuracy and precision of the World model, unlike the God model that produces no novel predictions, it must be kept (in some form). Another proposed justification for including the God sub-model has been that it improves accuracy or precision around certain specific subsets of data, and thus is a better fit when we consider all the data. An example of this would be the claim that "religious experience," such as visions, voices, and other sorts of personal experience are not explained/predicted by the other sub-models, in this case sub-models of human psychology without the God concept. In examining this question, the principle of Occam's Razor would direct us to remove the God sub-model if it did not provide better predictions about those sorts of experiences than alternative sub-models about human psychology, and to keep it if it did. Some people thus argue that Occam's Razor puts the question of the existence of God squarely within the realm of testable science. I.e. the idea of "God" is no different from any other idea, and can be evaluated with the same criteria we use for other models. While arguments taking the above form are common, they are not accepted among most psychologists or philosophers of science. No experiment or observation has produced any data of religious experience that cannot be at least equally well explained by psychological theories without the traditional God concept. And, possibly more important, is that the psychological theories employed in the explanation of such experience—precisely like evolutionary theory, as described above—have no new elements introduced just to explain this specific data set. The psychological theories of religious experience are simply ways of organizing more basic scientific concepts and explanations of human perception and experience. They are thus based on elements necessary to produce general accurate predictions of human experience and they produce accurate predictions of religious experience that can then be tested. The God model produces no testable predictions of even religious experience that cannot be produced without it, and it can be "shaved away" without affecting basic theories needed for more general explanations. On the other hand, Kierkegaard argued that there were no testable predictions of the existence of God and further argued that the concept of faith made any testable observations self-defeating. It is difficult to explain humankind's unique understanding of good and evil and its ability to love and hate -- relative to the rest of the animal kingdom -- from a purely evolutionary standpoint. In this sense, it is not reasonable to simply combine all of the material observations of our universe and apply Occam's Razor to justify the non-existence of God. Indeed, William of Ockham himself did not make this leap, being himself very well educated in religion. The principle is only a guide to the best theory based on current knowledge, not to the "truth". It is argued that Ockham was an intellectual forefather of the scientific method because he argued for a degree of intellectual freedom in a time of dogmatic belief, similarly to Roger Bacon. He can also, however, be seen as an apologist for Divine Omnipotence, since he was concerned with demonstrating that creation is contingent and the Creator is free to change the rules at will. Thus, if God is free to make an infinity of worlds with completely different rules from those which prevail in our world, then we are free to imagine such worlds and their logical and practical consequences. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor
Re: James The Dashing Pirate(Rewrite) by Luzr	8-Apr-06/11:56 AM
You could improve this poem by voting yourself a bunch of tens.
Re: Semaphores from the Chaos by cyan9	9-Apr-06/4:42 PM
Semaphores.
Re: Narcolepsy by Sunny	10-Apr-06/7:23 PM
"shudders" - heh. This poem isn't about narcolepsy at all.
Re: The Battle of Fort Bragg by Dovina	10-Apr-06/8:02 PM
To go back to Occam for a minute: This morning, if you are like most people, you woke up and took a piss. Why did you take a piss? The simplest explanation is that your bladder filled up while you slept with liquids you'd drunk the night before. Yes, you could also say that God made you piss, and that could be true. But the first explanation makes sense, is predictable, and follows certain basic rules, such as that liquids can't just disappear. The God explanation requires, yes, assumptions. These are: 1. God exists, 2. God has the power to make you piss, and 3. God is interested in whether or not you piss. To say the least. None of these is certain or even proveable, WHETHER OR NOT they're true. Occam says that, for the purposes of studying and predicting results, the God-made-me-piss explanation is unnecessary, unuseful (except for getting into Heaven, yes), and even harmful if, for example, you're trying to predict when you're going to need to piss and ignoring the properties of full bladders. This is THE ONLY THING OCCAM'S RAZOR SAYS. Everything else that has been suggested about Occam here is nonsense.
Re: Quatrain by ALChemy	28-Aug-06/3:29 PM
Sic volo, sic jubeo, stet pro ratione voluntas.
Re: An Ode To My Dead Husband Bert by Edna Sweetlove	29-Aug-06/2:34 PM
Millay would have made it rhyme. Check it out. Love is not all: it is not meat nor drink Nor slumber nor a roof against the rain; Nor yet a floating spar to men that sink And rise and sink and rise and sink again; Love can not fill the thickened lung with breath, Nor clean the blood, nor set the fractured bone; Yet many a man is making friends with death Even as I speak, for lack of love alone. It well may be that in a difficult hour, Pinned down by pain and moaning for release, Or nagged by want past resolution's power, I might be driven to sell your love for peace, Or trade the memory of this night for food. It may well be. I do not think I would.
regarding some deleted poem...	29-Aug-06/2:56 PM
Hair (Haiku) My cricketing togs I shed (including vest), when The Pakis declare*. *-i.e., jihad.
Re: End of day poem by ecargo	8-Sep-06/10:03 AM
Nice. Like richa, with rhythm.