Re: a comment on It's Time by PoeticXTC	29-Dec-05/8:50 AM
By every definition of "belief" we've used on poemranker, I don't believe in God. I might have previously said so on poemranker (undoubtedly for some perfectly understandable reason I've since forgotten). Or you're misquoting me. I'm inclined toward the former. Actually, I bet you're thinking of the Pascal's wager comments here: http://www.poemranker.com/poem-details.jsp?id=122114 . I wasn't saying I believe in God. Logically, I refuse to rule out the possibility of God's existence, since there's no evidence that he does or doesn't exist, and (as we define God) such evidence cannot reasonably exist. Of course, I could have a vision, a giant finger could appear in the sky pointing to a sign that says "-=GOD=-", or I could die and go to heaven (or not go to heaven). In any of those events, reason's pretty much going out the window, which is why I feel comfortable saying "reasonably exist". I'd like to think that in any of those events I'm not going to be surprised, while you probably are. That's a lot of conjecture, though, since another name for God is pretty much Big Surprise. I also think God makes a really handy literary device. Maybe that's what you're thinking of.
Re: a comment on It's Time by PoeticXTC	29-Dec-05/8:37 AM
The fact that I'm not black means I'm more likely to be an impartial judge to characteristics of blacks.
Re: a comment on It's Time by PoeticXTC	28-Dec-05/5:36 PM
I'd say there's no such thing as "information" in its own right, just things you've heard and decided are true, for any number of logical reasons. The question you should ask -=Dark_Angel=-,P.I. when he gets back is "What is the minimum you'd have to program a supersupercomputer with for it to deduce everything else?" DOVINA: Deference! ZODIAC: Christ, he's a programmer and philosopher. What was I supposed to do, spit in his eye?
Re: a comment on It's Time by PoeticXTC	28-Dec-05/5:30 PM
Hey, this is a really amazing conversation for two people who, for all appearances, have little first-hand experience of marriage. I've found it really, really informative. Would you greatly mind continuing it indefinitely? I'd be ever so interested and informed. re "Put into action": You're doing it again. Yes, yes, you know it makes no difference in your meaning, etc, etc, etc, to refer to something occuring naturally as "made" or "put into action". That's all fine. But *could* you phrase it my non-clodly way if you chose to? I bet not.
Re: a comment on It's Time by PoeticXTC	28-Dec-05/5:27 PM
You've missed the mark on -=DA=-. Dovina will call this deference. Then I'll call her a slob. And so it goes. Care to join us in the Poemranker Dance of Death?
Re: a comment on It's Time by PoeticXTC	28-Dec-05/5:25 PM
ZODIAC: You misused "incredulous". DOVINA: No I didn't. ZODIAC: Okay, you used it like a dope. "for", too.
Re: a comment on It's Time by PoeticXTC	28-Dec-05/6:34 AM
"Perceptual verification" is also logical deduction. Suppose your scientist deduces 332 planets. Then he looks through his telescope and sees 332 dots. (If he's using a radio telescope he sees 332 splotches of radio waves that look like what he's deduced stars' radio waves look like, not the stars themselves, but that's beside the point.) In the end, he has to logically deduce that the 332 dots he sees are stars. Even if he were to construct a spacecraft and land on each of 332 "planets", he would at some point or level have to deduce that, for one, the matter he was standing on comprised a "planet" and this "planet" orbits the sun he was considering, and for two, that the sensations he was experiencing meant he was "standing" on "matter". Is his conclusion - that a particular star has 332 planets - any less logically deduced because he's seen the planets or stood on them? I'd say no. But I have a feeling -=Dark_Angel=-'s going to get back from the Orkneys and tear us all new ones on this. Best to go on about our business and pretend this whole thing never happened.
Re: a comment on For Love of Baseball by Dovina	28-Dec-05/6:20 AM
Infield Fly Rule: http://www.poemranker.com/poem-details.jsp?id=119425
Re: real fright of going home by veggiegurl	27-Dec-05/9:34 PM
50 years ago, an American student your age could have recited William Cullen Bryant's "Thanatopsis" from memory. I'm not saying we're not better off than people were 50 years ago, but do *you* know what thanatopsis means?
Re: Social Rant by fubang22	27-Dec-05/9:23 PM
This was probably good before you shift-F7'ed it into oblivion
Re: why? by nentwined	27-Dec-05/9:20 PM
... I woosh into the void of her infinity. A single leaf falls.
Re: amalgam by ThePariahDog	27-Dec-05/9:19 PM
My best suggestion is that you start reading real poetry. Here's a good place to start: http://www.poems.com/archive.htm
Re: Disassociation by Christina	27-Dec-05/9:15 PM
Never use ellipses (...) in a poem. Ever. Once, a reporter dared Ernest Hemmingway to write a short story in only six words. His answer - "For sale: baby shoes. Never used."
Re: Deja vu by mystic enoch	27-Dec-05/9:11 PM
No, it's not too much to ask. My advice: Ditch him. My other advice: In almost every relationship I've ever seen, there's a balance between the amount of respect you give and the amount of respect you get. If you treat him like a god, he HAS TO treat you like a god treats a bug - and squash you. If you claim some respect for yourself, he has to respect you. Next guy (and there will be a next guy), show him what you're good at, what you're better at than he is (and I don't mean that you're good at being a bug). Make him feel like he's screwed up from time to time. Make him feel like YOU'RE better than HE is. Then before you know it you'll be thirty and have a guy who thinks you're better than he is while you think he's better than you are. Then you win and get married. Trust me.
Re: Not for Me by TLRufener	27-Dec-05/8:57 PM
A heart THAT never beats. Interesting image, words falling deaf. When most people would say words fell mute, or words fell on deaf ears. Seriously, why don't you try saying what YOU, DancingShamrock, mean, instead of saying what a million people before you meant? I think you would do better that way, is all.
Re: For Love of Baseball by Dovina	27-Dec-05/8:51 PM
Nice sentiment, poor execution.
Re: a comment on Ennui by Sisterwolf	27-Dec-05/7:01 PM
9) Once again, I'd like to see you take a turn at really critiquing other poemranker poems. The average poemranker user seems to think this is a site for other people to provide thoughtful, honest critiques on *his* poems without having to critique other people's. Then he gets pissed and leaves when no one critiques his. For once, I'd like someone to do the math: for everyone to get feedback, everyone needs to give feedback. Especially if that someone was a practiced poet like you. 10) If I'm the one who got you miffed at "kindergarten" critics, I hope this starts making up for it. Yes, I'm rude sometimes. Show me someone else who'll an informed critique and I'll consider changing my style. Anyway, I hope you'll stick around. Cheers.
Re: a comment on Ennui by Sisterwolf	27-Dec-05/7:01 PM
I'm not sure you really do, but here's for shooting in the dark: 1) I think you should punctuate normally, with periods at line-ends where required by convention. Yes, I've read several good poems lately, including some very good Adrienne Rich, which eschew line-end punctuation. But those were short pieces with frequent stanza breaks to ensure clarity. This is simply too dense to comfortably read without real breaks. OBVIOUS RESPONSE: zodiac doesn't know how to read hard poetry. ZODIAC: My degree's literature. By degree I mean Master's, with trimmings. By literature I mean stuff so hard it would curdle your ears. 2) This poem's real weaknesses aren't grammatical; they are English. Namely, 3) That string of descriptions and prepositional phrases in your first sentence needs shortening and breaking. The easiest fix: drop one - either "off icy sputum", "hawked by an angry sky", "whose knees knock", or "with cold". Or find a way to somehow make that two sentences, one about the prisms and sputum, one about the icy sky's knees and the cold. 4) This needs to be generally tightened. A poem about frost crystals as ennui is a good idea, and original to boot. I'd drop four-fifths of the unrelated ideas or images. 5) Small edits: "curare dart" is - oddly - archaic-sounding and not the most emotive image available. I'd drop it; it sounds like trope. The space between "movements" and "jerky" is unnecessary; drop it. I'd add a word before "suck" - either "to" or (more poetically, I think) "so". Especially without the punctuation, it's jarring reading. 6) Avoid pairing each noun with one-and-only-one adjective, especially 'thesaurus' nouns and 'poetic' adjectives. That impairs flow, slows the reading, clouds meaning, and becomes extremely obvious by about line 4. Try to vary your structure: good nouns often don't need adjectives (case in point: sputum); include a few strings of really interesting adjectives. 7) The last bit, starting with "It is a day" is really strong. That's not a crit; I liked it. And, again, I'm glad to see someone on this site who's read poetry before. 8) I'm not trying to come down hard on you. I'm just trying to suggest ways that I think you could make this poem better. You've obviously gotten POTM without my help, so feel free to refuse it. That's fine. I just got a poem in Kenyon - which is really fine.
Re: a comment on It's Time by PoeticXTC	26-Dec-05/2:18 PM
If anything, Zeno's proposing the opposite: that, logically, nothing functions. You can reach the door, although you should never be able to. Ergo, logic's occasionally bum. I dunno, maybe the music was playing a little loud and you thought he said you had fat thighs, instead of you're looking nice.
Re: a comment on Apocalypse has come to end by Prince of Void	26-Dec-05/7:54 AM
I'm influenced by television. But I wouldn't call myself Tom Brokaw. Be a god, if you like. I'm sure gods don't have to correctly spell poetry, or conjugate "have ever understood". Or know how to make a correctly-functioning planet, for that matter. Have a nice eternity.