Re: a comment on when i make sculpture by ay deee	27-Oct-05/12:36 PM
No, the aboveposted message means you misused the word "blatant" in your poem. Now in your comment, too. Twice. The symbols aren't all bad.
Re: Every Time by pletcgm	27-Oct-05/4:21 AM
I suggest you change the title of this poem to "Chills with Bumps". Otherwise, ace.
Re: a comment on Eternity by Dovina	27-Oct-05/4:18 AM
I might have misrepresented AlChemy's part, who knows? I don't even remember what the original subject was. Wasn't it that none of us cared about the original subject?
Re: The cold shoulder by <~>	27-Oct-05/4:16 AM
Awesome. The best part is you were giggling. I love it.
Re: a comment on dialect by skaskowski	26-Oct-05/6:34 AM
Of course. And if that doesn't work, there's always this: "[The] total of Iraqi dead since the American-led invasion is 26,690 to 30,051... A recent analysis [shows] that more than 60 Iraqis were killed daily this year, up from 40 last year." -today's NY Times
Re: when i make sculpture by ay deee	26-Oct-05/5:53 AM
"Usage Note: It is not surprising that blatant and flagrant are often confused, since the words have overlapping meanings. Both attribute conspicuousness and offensiveness to certain acts. Blatant emphasizes the failure to conceal the act. Flagrant, on the other hand, emphasizes the serious wrongdoing inherent in the offense. Certain contexts may admit either word depending on what is meant: a violation of human rights might be either blatant or flagrant. If it was committed with contempt for public scrutiny, it is blatant. If its barbarity was monstrous, it is flagrant. Blatant is sometimes used to mean simply “obvious,” as in the blatant danger of such an approach, but this use has not been established and is widely considered an error."
Re: a comment on Eternity by Dovina	26-Oct-05/5:48 AM
Yeah, you're so casual about the matter you can't stop yourself from calling everyone who's bothered mentioning your poem's technical clumsiness a, um, what's your expression? oh, a disagreer. For example, WILCO: I think the last half kills it. DOVINA: You probably like the joking part and object to the belief. ZODIAC: Change that to something less totally didactic and wood-tongued. DOVINA: You are simply disagreeing with the Christian position that “To die is gain.” ALCHEMY: I know you're taking what the doctors are saying out of context but it's a bit confusing. DOVINA: You say BOO because it seems contradictory. But for a Christian, Blaaaaaaaaaat. In other words, none of us cares to discuss the doctrinal part. Maybe YOU care to discuss it because it's like the third time you've totally flipped on the matter since coming to poemranker and you're rather proud of yourself (rather than, say, wondering if your such a total sack of contradictions you mightn't just fly apart at any moment.) Personally, we're bored with the matter. You don't believe me. Whatever. It's old news. What I DO care to discuss is the annihilation of the self into God. If you're not going to discuss that with me, I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you to go somewhere else. Now I'll start. ZODIAC: If (as only seems reasonable) the soul is incorporated into God at the instant of death, so that all, say, the imperfect parts of zodiac are burned away and what's left is only perfection and God-love, can I really say zodiac (ie, the part of zodiac that makes him zodiac) "survives death" or experiences heaven in any meaningful way? If (as only seems reasonable) I become some perfect-and-totally-different eternal zodiac, will I really care?
Re: a comment on dialect by skaskowski	26-Oct-05/5:30 AM
Okay, seriously, what possible answers to that question did you imagine? Carney? Kennedy? Australian? It's a silly question without even the benefit of SOUNDING deep. PS-You should consider "Arabic".
Re: a comment on dialect by skaskowski	26-Oct-05/5:27 AM
Boring. Okay, I'm bored. God will more likely admit the selfish to heaven, because the selfish has at least secured the well-being of one person during his lifetime - himself - while the selfless has possibly not done so. For all we know, the selfless killed himself building movie theatres on small tropic islands to show Wes Anderson films to their mystified and disappointed inhabitants. God will most likely FORGIVE the selfless first, though, because the selfless is more likely to be stupid, and stupid people deserve forgiveness. I'm not saying selfless people are stupid, I'm saying if 5% of actually selfless people are stupid, 4% of actually selfish people are. It's all about probabilities. I predict the totally unproductive direction this conversation takes is going to hinge on whether we define selfishness as (1) working for one's own well-being before others' or (2) doing the drugs and raping everybody and stepping on kittens and never working for anyone's well-being ever - i.e., greediness to the point of self-destruction. I propose accepting definition (1) from the start. Definition (2) is for losers and Bushies and doesn't make any sense.
Re: a comment on In my palm by Prince of Void	26-Oct-05/5:16 AM
Also, The Jitterbug.
Re: a comment on In my palm by Prince of Void	26-Oct-05/5:16 AM
Hey, there was one great fad a couple of years ago that really rocked. It was called Making Sense Occasionally, you should check it out.
Re: a comment on dialect by skaskowski	25-Oct-05/1:01 PM
You wanna talk about suggesting God, check this madness: "U.S. Military Deaths Reach 2,000 in Iraq"
Re: Intimate Joy by flightoffancy	25-Oct-05/12:57 PM
By a bizarre coincidence, a guy in this internet cafe just asked me what the English word "intimate" means. I'm afraid to ask why he wants to know.
Re: a comment on I don't rhyme enough, eh? by Niphredil	25-Oct-05/12:40 PM
It came at a price, believe me. The plus side is, it does get you laid after all.
Re: a comment on Incommunicado blues (fixed, except for Dovina) by zodiac	25-Oct-05/12:38 PM
I more and more agree with you.
Re: a comment on Incommunicado blues (fixed, except for Dovina) by zodiac	25-Oct-05/12:37 PM
Premature retraction didn't work for the Catholics, what makes you think it'll help here?
Re: a comment on Eternity by Dovina	25-Oct-05/12:34 PM
Stop it. You're so proud of yourself for supposedly ruffling our feathers. Whatever. We've heard this stuff since we were kids. If you'd bother considering the disintegration of the self into the godhead at the moment of death, and whether that means you or your protagonist will ever actually experience God/heaven in any form recongizable as 'self', you might ruffle us. To whatever you might respond, my response is: The medieval mystic Catherine of Siena believed Christ had married her in a vision with the foreskin of his circumcision. Check and mate.
Re: a comment on Eternity by Dovina	25-Oct-05/12:25 PM
No, I'm disagreeing with the position that it's necessary to say so so bluntly in a poem. Don't assume that crap about me. I happen to occasionally agree with the position that a Christian dying is gain. But I agree most with the missionary position.
Re: hoppy by calliope	25-Oct-05/3:07 AM
God bless thy poor bald pate. God bless. thy hollow winking eyes God bless thy shriveld beard. God. bless. thy many wrinkled forehead Thou hast no teeth old man & thus I kiss thy sleek bald head Heva come kiss his bald head for he will not hurt us Heva -Blake, Tiriel
Re: i hung that page to dry by FreeFormFixation	25-Oct-05/3:03 AM
Are you painting a photograph? Touching-up?