Re: a comment on The Rockets’ Song by Dovina	11-Dec-04/11:06 PM
You're still not getting it. Mouth-plum really means '[something like] a purplish mealy fruit in or coming from your mouth.' In an earlier, perhaps better version, it was actually a question: Is there a plum stuck in your mouth? Surely, you can't fault that for straying from the dictionary definition. Oh, right. You probably can. Because you don't get it.
Re: a comment on Dancing in Memories: Slipping Away In The House On The Hill by Stacy Stewart	11-Dec-04/6:09 AM
Hey, ace slobbering incomprehensible personal attack! You're probably also the kind of person who would claim I'm "hiding behind a computer screen" and then, upon learning my real name, make some shit crack about how it contains the words "Dyke", "Up", and "John". Like I hadn't heard those a million times already by the second grade.
Re: a comment on Limbs by Dovina	11-Dec-04/6:06 AM
Reading this comment, I wondered briefly how you might respond to the suggestion that the reason your poems can go in so many 'directions' is that they utterly fail to say anything at all coherently. My guess is, "Poot".
Re: a comment on The Rockets’ Song by Dovina	11-Dec-04/5:46 AM
For one thing, please describe for me how someone "shocked, but not dismayed" would appear in any wise differently from one, say, dismayed but not shocked, and which of the two would win an all-out no-holds-barred brassknuckles staring contest of the olden sort. For another thing, -=Dark_Angel=-,P.I. didn't impute anything, you dumb fuck. And would you not agree that it's boringly characteristic of you to misuse a word during a conversation about using words according to their precise meanings? For another thing, no one's fucking been talking about the meaning "plum" carries, normally or otherwise. Oh, except you, just now. The point is not that Briticisms, Americanisms, or what have you use words differently from their dictionary meanings; that's not even your original point. And besides, if you'd bothered to check, you'd know that "plum" as used on poemranker actually means 'a large purplish kind of mealy fruit'. Good one!
Re: Recognition by nentwined	9-Dec-04/6:05 AM
I'm compiling a list of things nentwined was probably doing with -=Dark_Angel=-,P.I.'s $1 instead of server maintenance during the week poemranker was down. Freely contribute.
Re: a comment on Dancing in Memories: Slipping Away In The House On The Hill by Stacy Stewart	9-Dec-04/6:01 AM
Excellent use of colons.
Re: a comment on The Rockets’ Song by Dovina	9-Dec-04/5:54 AM
You dumb. "Americanism" just means "a phrase or term originated in America." The idea that you use "ordinary words with their ordinary definitions" to point out anything is preposterous. That's exactly what -=Dark_Angel=-,P.I. does and you don't. That's how he knew that "shocked" and "dismay" are, respectively, adjective and noun forms of the same fucking thing, and "urging" doesn't mean what you think it does, and you didn't.
Re: a comment on The Rockets’ Song by Dovina	9-Dec-04/5:50 AM
Plum. You have no idea what any of the words you use actually mean. In Arabic, the expression "she thought" sounds like "fuck-rat"; the expression "he thought" sounds like "fuck-'er".
Re: a comment on Dictionary Lesson by Dovina	24-Nov-04/12:12 AM
Jesus. I just found this message and evacuated into my pants. For one thing, no one on this site credits you with too much reason. We credit the human race in general with a capacity for reason - most of which, we're well aware, is regularly and somewhat disgustingly pissed upon by aspiring poetes such as yourself. For another thing, "find fascination" is not a real English construction; rather, it's what I've come to identify as "typically Dovina" - an ignominious category chockfull of such gems as "realized its reciprocal" and "discover all that I've made quite pleasing". For yet another thing, your bumming on about "strictly philosophical" anything, including that bum bum-filled bum of a "strangled verse" above is totally nuts. You'd have done much better to answer -=Dark_Angel=-,P.I.'s comment something like: "Almost any poem I, Dovina, can think of (except my own) is philosophically sound, meaning roughly that it can be regarded using the tools or language of philosophers without being found totally bum," instead of just proving his point. Frost's "The Road not Taken," for example, is more-than-adequately philosophical, proposing as it does that the profit from blindly picking only one of two more-or-less equivalent options (and without later knowing the result of picking the other option) is pretty much unknowable and only in the mind of the chooser, who thinks, man I'm sure lucky I picked this option, I'm a great chooser. And I bet you thought the road less travelled by really does make all the difference. And for another thing, there is no anything without words, so saying there's no philosophy without them is crap and a cheap dis. And for another thing, "the only things we can talk about logically are words and numbers" is simply wrongheaded. We can only talk about anything with words and numbers, so obviously thinking logically about them is pretty important. And for another thing, saying "if so, there is no fun, and without fun, what good is logic." is bum twice-over and mispunctuated. This is essentially equivalent to saying both, "without harnesses and polo horses, there is no fun" AND "without fun, what good is sewage-treatment?" Bum and bum.
Re: a comment on Dictionary Lesson by Dovina	23-Nov-04/3:44 AM
Dear Doctor Science, Last night, in a fit of drunken pique, I went into my laboratory and constructed a robot which could feel (approximately) all the same things humans do. Unfortunately, being drunk, I neglected to program it with any words describing any state of being except "good" and "bad". Then I flipped the switch and immediately ordered it to spin around until it fell down. "So, relate to me exactly how you feel now," I commanded, after it had fallen. "I can't say," the robot answered. "Neither 'good' nor 'bad', really. And those are the only two words I have for expressing states of being. I can tell you half of my cybernetic units are malfunctioning, and my gyrometer is ten degrees out of whack -" "Unsatisfactory!" I thundered, threatening it with a large salami I happened to be holding. (If there's anything robots are afraid of, it's the touch of luncheon meat.) "I don't have cybernetic units or a gyrometer, so how am I supposed to understand how you feel?!" "Well," said the robot, shrinking a little from the frantically waggling salami, "I guess I feel bad." "Bad?" I repeated, a little dubiously. "Okay, fine then. Good." "Unsatisfactory!" I said again. I suppose now that if it had had more experience of the world, it could have answered, "I feel drunk," or "I feel like I've stood up too suddenly." Maybe later, it would be able to say, "Drinking alcohol makes me feel something like when I've spun around alot." But who knows? Maybe it would have just used the word 'good' for all those future situations. Anyway, I didn't have the chance to find out, as, with the salami-brandishing and the sticky philosophical dilemma confronting it, its cybertronics suddenly fused into a mass of kind of disgusting jelly. Undaunted, I've constructed another robot and programmed it to answer only 'dizzy' or in terms of dizziness to any state-of-being question it faces. This second robot seems to be doing okay, but only as long as I keep it spinning. Otherwise, it tends to describe things like producing robo-stools or watching one of those sentimental home-appliance-company commercials as either "dizzying" or "not quite dizzy". My question for you, Doctor, is, which of my two robots would win an all-out no-holds-barred steel-deathcage grudge-match? And: Which, if any of us, was really wrong?!??!?!? Yours, as always, zodiac in Islamica
Re: a comment on Dictionary Lesson by Dovina	23-Nov-04/3:09 AM
Bum.
Re: a comment on Dictionary Lesson by Dovina	23-Nov-04/2:53 AM
I "wander from the topics originally set forth" because I consider them adequately presented already and not adequately rebutted yet. And because your poem has a dozen more silly errors which bear pointing out. And because it's called a fucking analogy to help you fucking get it. And because I'm bored numb in this bum of a backwater cuntry. However, checking my posts on this poem, I find that I've stayed surprisingly (for me) true to my original topics, which, for the sake of being on the same page, are: 1) The converse of "I love you" is not "you love me"; 2) The two uses of "realized" in your poem imply that the previous statements are necessarily (and not just arbitrarily) followed by the ensuing ones; this is the cause of most of the bumness of your poem, including 5) below; 3) Opposite and contrary are the same thing; ergo, instead of "many reverses" you only have two: "reciprocal" and "contrary"; 4) Strictly speaking, "hate" is not the opposite of "love"; 5) This poem is trying to speak strictly. 6) Your dictionary is not a "history written ahead of the fact," it's written after the fact of millions of people having the same experience. 7) You misspelled "blurred"; And lately, 8) zodiac's poetry is unfeeling and meaningless while Dovina's isn't; 9) zodiac must be a hard person to live with; 10) zodiac doesn't appreciate "centuries" because he is bum at Maths. I should point out that you originated all these digressions. All my posts on this page have attempted to clarify or rebut one or more of the abovementioned points. Perhaps you're confusing my thread in this discussion with -=Dark_Angel=-, P.I.'s. As far as your two "refuted" points: The first was an exaggeration on my part, based on your comment of 21-Nov-04/11:20 AM that your poem "presents an appearance of relating philosophy, as it applies to word definitions, to felt life," and a million other ways on this page and others you've tried to present the idea that analysis, especially philosophical analysis, renders things meaningless. So fucking sue me. The second is a bum argument, as I've already pointed out how contrary and opposite are the same thing, and how if they weren't the same, hinging your "compendium of devolution" on one possible contrary for "I love you" would be just as bum. Your response is like saying, "The Japanese Empire's decisive victory in World War II is a good example of how the Japanese work ethic and slavish adherence to heirarchy are superior to American wealth, spunk, and free-marketism." Your starting assumption is simply not true.
Re: a comment on Dictionary Lesson by Dovina	21-Nov-04/11:28 PM
re: "I do appreciate your (notice I have used the word correctly here, not as you so often do when you mean you’re) baseball story because it reminds me of the way you define poetry." Congratulations. You've just said 'Your metaphor for the way we differently define poetry reminds me of the way you, zodiac, define poetry.' Bum.
Re: a comment on Dictionary Lesson by Dovina	21-Nov-04/11:23 PM
re: "You, of course, would not understand if I were to say that I wish we could change the counting system to the base 9 because then the dawn of the 28th century would probably fall within my lifetime, just twenty years from next New Years Day. It’s something your three years in math has not prepared you for, any more than your floundering language abuse has prepared you to criticize poetry." That's because only you would think seeing "the dawn of the 28th century" in your lifetime has any special meaning then! Suppose for a moment we used a system for time measurement that starts a new "century" every year; would you still feel a stirring of importance in your loins at having lived through the 6 billion and first through 6 billion and twenty-first centuries? Probably! PS-For calling it "the 28th century", you fail. The word "century" supposes a special significance for 100s, a base-9 system does not. You'd have to celebrate eightyoneturies or something such. And who in his right mind would do that?!?!?!?!?! You've just made the same mistake I did. Consider yourself suitably bum.
Re: a comment on Dictionary Lesson by Dovina	21-Nov-04/11:13 PM
re: "Of course, hate is the opposite of love in the minds of most people," Yes. And bum. And that's not the point of your poem. The point is to use mathematical/philosophical/dictionary terms (I believe we've at least agreed on that) to transform love into hate. Anyway, try to worm out of your having twice performed the same action (ie, opposite/contrary) on "I love you" and come out with different answers. [DIGRESSION: Let's suppose for a moment that contrary really means what you want it to, rather than what it does - ie, roughly, 'something different from the original direction,' the way a "contrary" course for a boat on a heading of 180 degrees might be, oh, 90 degrees. Or, alternately, the way a contrary opinion to the Bush Administration's assertion, "The war in Iraq was justified and excellently implemented" might be "The war in Iraq was necessary, but implemented badly." This, you'll see, is not an exact opposite according to your definition, but the Bush Administration still supresses it as contrary. Okay? Well, you see why it's still a bum word to use in your poem, right? Because then there would be an infinite number of contraries for any given thing, when a huge part of the basis for your poem is that, given the phrase 'I love you', "ITS CONTRARY" is "I don't love you" and that's why there are so "many reverses". BUM!!! RESOUNDINGLY BUM!!!! Why isn't "its contrary" simply "I love you, but as a friend"? Or "I love you even more than I did"? Because then your life wouldn't be a "Compendium of devolution"!!!!]
Re: a comment on Dictionary Lesson by Dovina	21-Nov-04/11:11 PM
re: "relating philosophy, as it applies to word definitions, to felt life" Philosophy doesn't need to be related to felt life, as you'll know if you've bothered yet with -=Dark_Angel=-,P.I.'s comment on the subject. You seem to have the idea that philosophy is some kind of useless dangling separate entity existing in its own rather stale ether and having nothing to do with felt life. You have this idea because your bum.
Re: a comment on Dictionary Lesson by Dovina	21-Nov-04/11:10 PM
re: "As usual, you have said that I said something which I did not." I've just googled the term "reciprocal AND contrary AND result AND opposite AND converse" and the results are overwhelmingly philosophical and mathematical articles. It's the simplest thing to conclude then that when these terms are used together, it's almost solely in the context of philosophy and mathematics. Even a dim like you would have seen that and intended it. Poemranker posters usually do. And PS-check your message of 18-Nov-04/12:25 PM. I'm paraphrasing you, but not misquoting.
Re: a comment on Dictionary Lesson by Dovina	21-Nov-04/11:09 PM
re: "in hopeful appearance of reasonableness and have failed." Would you kindly bother explaining how it's hopeful, an appearance, and a failure? It's the least you can do, considering I've written Lord-knows-how-many novels on your last months' poemes meticulously explaining my points. And no, the rest of your comment isn't the answer. In fact, I've been more than reasonable; your contention is that your poem isn't required to be reasonable. Do you see the distinction? I bet not.
Re: a comment on Dictionary Lesson by Dovina	20-Nov-04/11:52 PM
PS-I'm a great man to live with. People love me. PPS-These are my written words. What are you on about?
Re: a comment on Dictionary Lesson by Dovina	20-Nov-04/11:49 PM
I'm reminded of how once, during a baseball practice with the old Milwaukee Blacks (all Negroes, except me), a young woman snuck onto the field, rubbed herself all over with faeces, and proceded to run around the bases, furiously dry-humping anyone unimaginative enough to stay in his position (ie, most of the team, as they were all Negroes.) "What are you doing?" I asked, when she'd finally tired out enough to listen. "I'm playing baseball," she answered. "No you're not," I said. "Baseball is played with a stick and a ball. We're playing baseball." "That's not my understanding of baseball. Mine is running around bases and faeces. What authority do you have to say your game is baseball and mine isn't?" she said, surprisingly articulately, which made us think she'd probably picked up the phrase somewhere else. "Well," I said. "We invented the game. We have umpires and coaches who tell us what is baseball and what isn't." "I reject your umpires," she answered pertly. "Besides, umpires don't even play baseball. They just watch and comment. How are they to know what's baseball and what isn't? When I rub myself with faeces and run bases, I FEEL that I'm playing baseball. What have your umpires got to compare with that?" "They INVENTED the game!" I shouted, getting a little exasperated. "The definition of baseball is 'A sport played with sticks and balls and approved by umpires'!" "Poot!" she said. "Rules! Correctness! No one would have any fun playing your baseball, adhering to rules and logic and authorities! The fun is all that matters to me!" "Look," I said, lowering my voice a little (for the Negroes were getting a little frightened, in that way Negroes do sometimes), "Baseball is one of the most popular sports in the world. Tons of people have fun playing it, rules and all. Now, Lord knows you can play whatever kind of game you want. But why don't you just call it something other than baseball? And try not playing it on a BASEBALL field?" "I WANT it to be baseball!" she answered. "No, I don't know where I got the idea that it was baseball. I was just rubbing myself with faeces one day when the word just came to me: Baseball." We could tell she was getting worked up again, her faeces-caked eyes kind of aglow with a weird stupid light. And sure enough, she started chasing the players again until we were forced the abandon the field. And that was the end of the Negro League in Milwaukee. The end.