Re: a comment on Haven by cyan9	17-Nov-05/5:29 AM
In short: I am saving my energy by leaving feedback like this. I've never thought anyone referencing Billy Corgan was trying to be intelligent, much less that he was intelligent. The point, I'm genuinely sorry to say, was almost entirely my own amusement, but you should have gotten a picture of going a little too far in the direction of ambiguity, goth, and grammarlessness.
Re: a comment on Beneath the Willow Tree by cyan9	17-Nov-05/5:19 AM
I've come off badly here. Let me start again: I find this poem neither very evocative nor very original. Nor particularly meaningful. Considering that it seems written to be strong visually or evocatively (and not necessarily meaningful) I'll stick with that. Eminations, vortices, tunnels and such are so often repeated these days that they're practically meaningless to me. Besides, not having actually traveled through a vortex to a tunnel's vertex or however it goes, I've got nothing to connect this with my experience. Phrases like a "haze of brightness" pull their punches, going for a standard or vague formulation rather than working to evoke an actual image or impression. Vortex and ripples are repeated in the poem's second half to even less effect, and I wonder why. I liked the inked index finger, the theatre trolley, and the last line, but I found those parts overwhelmed by parts saying things I've heard a million times before and better. I especially don't like "mana from the sky", which, in addition to jarring with the poem's other imagery, is misspelled. Regarding spelling and punctuation: There's simply no point in ignoring or going slack on basic rules of English. Even the best poem needs all the help it can get, and it hurts your poem's standing in EVERY SINGLE PERSON'S EYES, POETRY SNOB OR NOT, to come across bad spelling and grammar. There's no basis for using punctuation ONLY for pauses, even in 17th and 18th c. poetry, which is what you're thinking of. That's not semantic, anyway. There's no such thing as continuous verse. You've made that term up. Don't require your reader to do more work and expect him to like it. Seriously. Authorly tidbits like "take it for what it is" very rarely go over, even when they come from real authors. Incidentally, there are things here that should cause someone difficulty reading - at least inasmuch as your reader has to see "mana" and think "okay, he means manna". Regarding the rest of your comment: I'm not teenage. I feel most of this came across in my first, admittedly cynical message. I highly doubt you'll welcome this feedback, or even read it this far. Do not suggest I lack imagination or ability as far as reading your poem goes. Thanks. Have a nice day.
Re: a comment on Us Sinners by BrandonW	17-Nov-05/4:59 AM
A1: No, I just meant, oh like it's a big accomplishment showing that I assumed something. Big rip. DOVINA: Exactly. Big rip. ZODIAC: So why have you spent the last ten comments trying to "prove" it? DOVINA: That's just what I always do. ZODIAC: Exactly. And I appreciate how you stopped being a very realistic version of yourself about three imaginary comments ago. DOVINA: Why thank you. Did I mention you're looking good today? ZODIAC: You have now. A2: Could God be anything less than totally cool? No. By definition.
Re: a comment on Us Sinners by BrandonW	17-Nov-05/4:54 AM
To AlChemy: See?
Re: a comment on Us Sinners by BrandonW	17-Nov-05/4:53 AM
The more I think about it, the more I think The Rapture is the point where Dovina and I converge. And just imagine me as David "Recently-abandoned-his-Harvard-PhD-for-acting" Duchovny and Dovina as Mimi "Customer-service-call-center-drone" Rogers cruising the furniture showrooms of the internet for willing swingers. I love it. I'd love to ask her what she thinks of the movie, but I'm pretty sure the preceding has made her scared to watch it. Watch.
Re: a comment on When Did You Walk Away? by TLRufener	16-Nov-05/7:06 AM
Yes, but most of your questions have answers, and most of those answers are either yes or no. To name a few others, Q: Where have equality slipped off to? A: It was never here. You've been taken by an equality impersonator with a bad accent. Q: Did you ever hear me cry? A: No. And I don't want to. Stop that right now, mister. Q: Did the Angel knock upon your door? A: If it did, I was in the shower. Q: Did they carry you away? A: Who? Weren't you talking about one angel? Um, no. Q: When you looked into their eyes did they option you to stay? A: No. Nice grammar though. Q: What did I do to make them take you from me? A: You have to believe in them to make them come, usually accompanied by saying 'Angel, Angel, Angel' in a mirror at exactly midnight. Buying an Angel tv-show box-set does it too. Q: When did you walk away? A: Easy. Right before I wasn't there any more. Time to move on. What I'm trying to say is that people read poems be spoonfed answers, or to check their answers against someone else's. If I ever did think of a question I thought had no answer, I'd avoid putting it in a poem, for fear some reader who knew the answer would think I was kind of dumb. You can't say I'm not talking about your poems.
Re: a comment on Beneath the Willow Tree by cyan9	16-Nov-05/6:49 AM
Was it a play on gizzing? I already missed it.
Re: a comment on Us Sinners by BrandonW	16-Nov-05/6:46 AM
I don't want to ruin it for you if you honestly don't remember, but it's worth watching again if just for the line "Why can't we just die, mommy?" and the part where Mimi says to Dave Duchovny "So I guess I don't get into heaven" and Dave's ghost says "No, guess not" and that's the end.
Re: a comment on Beneath the Willow Tree by cyan9	16-Nov-05/6:43 AM
At least I guessed how to correctly spell guessing. You're right, I'm not putting any thought into this.
Re: a comment on When Did You Walk Away? by TLRufener	16-Nov-05/5:32 AM
I guess we've at least gotten to the bottom of "Do you plan on ever answering anything?".
Re: Us Sinners by BrandonW	16-Nov-05/5:25 AM
Question: Do you believe that if she is in heaven alone, she's unhappy from loneliness?
Re: a comment on Us Sinners by BrandonW	16-Nov-05/5:24 AM
So you have seen it. Question for a self-described skeptic believer: Do you think it was serious or satire?
Re: a comment on Us Sinners by BrandonW	16-Nov-05/5:23 AM
I'll restate: I assume God. The formulation "Could X...?" assumes X, for all that's worth. The question "Could a race of Snorks in a hypothetical universe in which gravity is frequently and arbitrarily reversed manage to keep their pants up with fewer than four grasping appendages?" assumes a race of Snorks. Unfortunately for the Snorks, it doesn't make them exist; nor does it make me believe they exist.
Re: a comment on After Fighting (More Blood Edit) by zodiac	16-Nov-05/5:17 AM
Yes, that was about two edits from actually making into the poem.
Re: a comment on After Fighting (More Blood Edit) by zodiac	15-Nov-05/11:44 AM
Yeah, I didn't relent while I was fighting, I didn't stop fighting, or hold back any tirade. Maybe "wringing" is the problem. I did wonder about that, but decided it was a good enough word for kind of fidgeting my fist around, but not from pain or weakness.
Re: a comment on The Gate of Heaven by TLRufener	15-Nov-05/11:41 AM
Yes, of course you could. Your argument is 'The Bible isn't about getting into heaven.' All you have to do is post a bunch of passages that aren't about getting into heaven. Except - wait. I already posted a bunch of Bible quotes about how the goal is to get to heaven. I have no articles of faith, I only summarize the Bible. That's what the preceding comment is. Maybe you accidentally reversed that sentence?
Re: a comment on After Fighting (More Blood Edit) by zodiac	15-Nov-05/11:37 AM
I don't understand.
Re: a comment on Us Sinners by BrandonW	15-Nov-05/11:34 AM
What I assume is that you remember an entire conversation where you assumed God but not heaven. If you don't, it's here: http://www.poemranker.com/poem-details.jsp?id=119209. Notice I made more-or-less the same argument you're making now, to less effect. That is, at least when I assume God I assume God as the only real source of information we have about him makes him out to be. When you assume God you make him out of pillows to practice French kissing.
Re: a comment on After Fighting (More Blood Edit) by zodiac	15-Nov-05/11:19 AM
I don't think you're using relent the same way I do. Are you?
Re: a comment on Us Sinners by BrandonW	15-Nov-05/11:16 AM
It doesn't assume God. Anyway, you're one to talk about assuming God, considering you've previously on this assumed a God who doesn't act in any way scripturally ascribed to Him. At least I assume a God who is either unreasonable or privy to a reason beyond our human comprehension. Ie, one so different from "reason" it might as well be called something totally different. Either way, it gives me the heebie-jeebies. I guess this is what people get faith for.