Re: Body & Earth by PoeticXTC	2-Jan-06/7:53 AM
Insane is misspelled. Very funny.
Re: MEANinglessness by lmp	2-Jan-06/7:51 AM
Say "fucking". Or, better yet, don't use swear-words (or half-swear-words) at all. This beating-around-the-bush is kind of wack.
Re: a comment on Nightfall by Niphredil	2-Jan-06/7:46 AM
> "Darkling" means "in the dark." No it doesn't.
Re: a comment on Nightfall by Niphredil	2-Jan-06/7:44 AM
Oh, actually nothing. I didn't remember reading it and just kind of assumed it had some. Sorry, Niphredil. This is a great poem. I don't know what Dovina's problem is.
Re: broodmood by lmp	2-Jan-06/7:42 AM
Any poem with the word "scudding" in it gets an extra point from me.
Re: we hold hands when i sleep by hendrimike	2-Jan-06/7:41 AM
Rewrite all of this so it's like the fourth verse.
Re: a comment on Nightfall by Niphredil	2-Jan-06/7:33 AM
I was trying to keep you from giving a poemranker post for an answer. Kerouac seems perfectly logical to me, mostly because reporting stream-of-consciousness is a perfectly logical thing to do, and that's obviously what Kerouac's doing. Yes, something like your quote above (or this one: "The taste / of rain / —Why kneel?") makes loose, unlogical "conclusions". But compare that with Niphredil's poem here and you can see how Kerouac gets away with it and Niphredil doesn't. And anyway, a great way to get around having to be logical in poetry is to say 'I'm a Beat Poet' three times, then spin around and vanish.
Re: a comment on Nightfall by Niphredil	2-Jan-06/7:22 AM
Oh, him. The point was supposed to be that most good poems are logical, but, Touche.
Re: a comment on My Interesting Life by Dovina	2-Jan-06/7:15 AM
Oh. Then up the adverbs. Show us all.
Re: a comment on Nightfall by Niphredil	2-Jan-06/7:14 AM
INTRANSIT: Find me a well-known illogical poem.
Re: a comment on For Love of Baseball by Dovina	2-Jan-06/7:12 AM
Happy Happy New Year.
Re: a comment on Romans 8:28 by amanda_dcosta	2-Jan-06/7:12 AM
How can I not believe in psychology? Do you mean that I don't believe in some of the theories formulated by psychologists? You're right, I don't. But that's not the point. The point is that I've been saying for a week now that the only real way to believe in God is by feeling Him in your bow'ls. There is no possible proof of God because God means "He Who can do everything", and that's unproveable. To paraphrase -=Dark_Angel=-'s question from another context, If you hear a giant voice in the sky saying "I am God", is that proof of God? Or possibly an megalomaniac in an airplane with a loudspeaker? What if someone rises from the dead? Is that proof of a God who can do Everything? No. And how do you test "everything", anyway? What does it say about God you can't look for him in truth? Happy New Year.
Re: a comment on Romans 8:28 by amanda_dcosta	2-Jan-06/7:08 AM
I'm a little hurt by "degrees and apparent know-it-allness". All I mean by that is that I've worked hard to know as much as I can about things that interest me, and I'm naive enough to think that matters. If you were a pool shark, I wouldn't insult your experience by saying it's perfectly okay to play with live baby pigeons instead of billiard balls.
Re: a comment on Romans 8:28 by amanda_dcosta	2-Jan-06/6:50 AM
Stupid. Fuzzy logic is illogic. There's no distinction. And I've admitted my areguementes might be flawed, which is more than you've had the common courtesy to do, Miss.
Re: a comment on Romans 8:28 by amanda_dcosta	2-Jan-06/6:40 AM
One of your many logical mistakes in this argument is thinking the word "logical" means anything different from "orderly", "consistent" or "predictable". You've said dozens of times on this site that you think the universe's consistent adherence to physical (or evolutionary) rules is possible evidence of God. You believe the statement 1 + 1 = 2 exists in some eternal, Platonic order beyond our mere mortal bow'ls. If that so-called order isn't God, what is it?
Re: a comment on Romans 8:28 by amanda_dcosta	31-Dec-05/6:27 AM
"1 + 1 = 2" is Platonic and eternal because one thing and one thing always makes two things. The implications of "1 + 1 = 2" is that there is some real thing that one of and one of makes two of. Platonic, eternal, and implications are just language describing one thing and one thing. So is my language, except mine is simpler and doesn't lead to mistakes like thinking it's evidence of God. PS-Please take note of the God exists because things are logical, God exists if things are illogical comment.
Re: a comment on War (edit) by zodiac	30-Dec-05/10:45 AM
For some reason I can't on this computer. Sorry :-(
Re: a comment on Romans 8:28 by amanda_dcosta	30-Dec-05/10:43 AM
Good logic is, well, logical. It starts with propositions and makes a logical conclusion. Like: 1. I am taller than my brother. 2. My brother is six feet tall. 3. Therefore, I'm taller than six feet tall. Or, 1. All apples are fruits. 2. Meat is not a fruit. 3. Therefore meat is not an apple. That I'm taller than my brother and that my brother is six feet tall are proveable; we're both in the house, we can measure. That I'm taller than six feet follows naturally. Even things that don't exist can be logical. For example: 1. In an imaginary universe, all snorkbeasts have fangs. 2. Steve does not have fangs. 3. Therefore, Steve is not a snorkbeast. Bad logic makes one or more mistakes in that process. Easy examples of bad logic are: 1. I'm taller than my brother. 2. My brother is six feet tall. 3. Therefore, I'm older than my brother. 1. I'm taller than everybody. 2. My brother is six feet tall. 3. Therefore, I'm taller than my brother. 1. All apples are fruits. 2. Meat is not an apple. 3. Therefore, meat is not a fruit. It doesn't make any difference that I AM older and taller than my brother; the logical process getting there is still flawed, because height doesn't really have anything to do with age, and because I'm not taller than everybody. Anyway, that's the short version. What I've been trying to say is that everybody needs to stop talking about God in the context of logic, because whether you believe in God or not ultimately comes down to whether you accept 'God can do everything' and 'God knows best' as true. There are no possible proofs for those propositions, so in the end you have to just decide to accept them or not based on your own feelings. I'm also saying that if you believe in God, He seems very obvious and things seem very reasonable. But if you don't believe in God, He seems very non-obvious and things seem very reasonable. Logic has nothing to do with it. And trying to 'prove' God with logic is actually disgusting.
Re: a comment on Romans 8:28 by amanda_dcosta	30-Dec-05/10:02 AM
There is no "people's version of logic". There's only Real Logic and Bad Logic, like "People can fly; I'm a person; therefore I can fly". All logical arguments fall into one or the other category. Things that fall into the Real Logic category never contradict each other. I'm perfectly willing to admit that my logic might be bad logic.
Re: a comment on Romans 8:28 by amanda_dcosta	30-Dec-05/9:56 AM
No, no. Most simply put, what we're saying is that God is not bound by logic. And even that's not correct. God IS logical, as shown by the following: 1. God can do everything. 2. The set of everything includes 'defy gravity'. 3. God can defy gravity. 1. God knows best. 2. God kills 200,000 people incomprehensibly (to us). 3. God knows best. Provided you accept 'God can do everything' and 'God knows best' as true, it's perfectly easy to understand God and His Works using logic. Most people - including Dovina, most likely - don't really accept those propositions as true, so they think logic doesn't apply to God, and they're in for a world of hurt. Even nonbelievers would do well to consider: 1. God doesn't fit with my idea of the universe. 2. There is possibly a God who can make any kind of universe. 3. The set of any universe includes my universe. 4. There is possibly a God.