Re: Looking Over the Blueprints by somemorepoetry	15-Apr-05/10:53 PM
I liked it a lot at the end of stanza 2. Seems like everything after that needs to be tightened up a bit.
Re: a comment on Butterfly Plague by zodiac	15-Apr-05/10:33 PM
You're a fucking hero.
Re: a comment on Utensils of creation by Damien	15-Apr-05/10:28 PM
You are a sackfull of various clods.
Re: a comment on Utensils of creation by Damien	15-Apr-05/10:26 PM
Don't be a fucking moron. And stop making assumptions. For one, I spend all day sitting around a desert, not a computer; for another, it's just more fun to say "fucking moron" than other, equivalent things. If people like you touched a nerve, I would have hemorrhaged to death over poemranker months ago. 1. You couldn't spiritually develop your way out of a damp cardboard box. 2. Why didn't you say so? Cause what you've said is ridiculous. 3. I don't understand what this point's saying. Do you mean that you've almost graduated high school? I got a 1580 on the SAT; what did you get? 4. You're wrong there. Maybe it means I've just run out of non-offensive original ways of saying things. 5. Whatever. Like anyone wants to read your freestyle ramblings.
Re: a comment on Middle-Aged White Woman by Dovina	15-Apr-05/10:18 PM
To recap: Dovina: "...The poem, which never said anyone ignored me in his/her poetry." zodiac: "I never said the poem said anyone ignored you. I said it proposes that they ignore you." Seems clear enough to me. Incidentally, I also read this: "He ignored me, didn’t hire me, belittle me in his poetry, skiped over me at his open mic reading. It's all sadly there." So, I don't think you read what you say before spinning off in a completely different direction. Look, I'm putting on my Serious Hat now. I don't much care if anyone did or didn't ignore you, belittle you, etc. That's never been pertinent to anyone but you. I'm telling you, though, that this poem is racist. It doesn't matter if it's about an individual: The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn is racist and it's only about one black individual, Nigger Jim. It doesn't matter if al-naafiiysh, etc, like it and say you're not racist: Nigger Jim liked Huck and Huck was racist. It doesn't matter if its goal (ie, a sense of wrongs retributed or whatever) is unracist: the goal of Affirmative Action is unracist, and Affirmative Action is still racist. As I've said before, the mistakes of this poem are: 1) Placing wrongs against blacks in some vague past (bonus! You were uninvolved.) 2) Taking for granted that blacks today have enough "newfound" power and freedom that they could oppress whites if they wanted to. 3) Thinking that blacks would want to. 4) Thinking you have a place in black culture, community, verse, or readings, when historically black culture has run just finely without you. 5) Thinking a black person belittling you in his verse makes up for 200-something years of slavery, 100 more years of institutionalized segregation, and another fifty of vague badness. All of that's in the poem. Please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please believe me.
Re: a comment on Middle-Aged White Woman by Dovina	14-Apr-05/3:31 AM
I never said the poem said anyone ignored you. I said it proposes that they ignore you. Then I said, guess what, they already are; they don't need your permission. You always say you're describing a case. You're always describing a population. You're also a racist. Is your answer going to be, No, I'm not; I, Dovina, declare that I'm not? Why don't you try listening for once?
Re: a comment on THE EPIC OF THE -- TRANSEXUAL -- FROG by Sashaclese	14-Apr-05/3:26 AM
Sashaclese Email: (private/not displayed) ... Voting history: (see votes) Style Votes Average *****user has not voted on anything!?***** So shut the fuck up.
Re: a comment on Utensils of creation by Damien	14-Apr-05/3:24 AM
Nagging about grammar isn't petty. Well, it's not as petty as writing a mediocre poem because you can't be bothered to do the grammar right, anyway. Anyway, grammar has everything to do with writing what you feel. For example, by leaving "there" (instead of "their") you make the poem mean something entirely different from what you feel. It's not politician's actions that control our minds, it's just some actions... there. For another example, you don't even know what you think and communicate like a fucking cerebral-palsied, you fucking moron. You basically prove: 1) Politicians don't use life-changing words; 2) Politicians control our minds; therefore, 3) There are no life-changing words. - which is fucking idiotic. For yet another example, you can't even communicate or read well enough to know what someone commenting on your poem is saying, anyway. You think we're having some big argument about whether "the subjects interlink they are not one", whatever that means, and you're probably all pissed about it and punching walls and shit, and no one's said anything of the kind. I've said some of the lines are simply WRONG. If you wanna wrassle, try answering that, buddy. Why don't you try to make sense and stop spazzing all over the place? Hey, good luck!
Re: a comment on Potential by Christof	14-Apr-05/3:03 AM
I just don't think any of that works.
Re: Haunting Dreams by AtomIcPromIse	12-Apr-05/6:18 AM
In my country, people actually do throw acid at other people's faces. It's just not a very cool image.
Re: Perfect Answer by Alizarin_Crimson	12-Apr-05/6:10 AM
Were you in a Philosophy class when you heard that? Do you believe "Because" answers the question "Why?"
Re: trully, madly, deeply by Blindpoetry	12-Apr-05/6:09 AM
You're saved from eternal mocking for this by the fact that you weren't even potty-trained when the song "Truly, Madly, Deeply" was popular.
Re: ugly parade by New Life Drug	12-Apr-05/6:08 AM
There are probably happy people somewhere. You just don't know where they hang out. They want it that way.
Re: look east when you leave west by Caducus	12-Apr-05/6:05 AM
There seem to be a lot of dangling, misplaced, or mismodifying participle phrases in this. Some examples: "Feeling atlas blue the Atlantic pulse quickens;" "pulling me in currents I fight it with leaden arms" "Staring at the ocean you loved my soup of bones." I wonder if you realize you're writing about an Atlantic pulse that feels blue, you pulling yourself in currents, and a woman who loves bone soup (but not necessarily the ocean).
Re: Homecoming by Dovina	12-Apr-05/6:01 AM
The third and last stanzas are well-written. The rest could use some poetry.
Re: Potential by Christof	12-Apr-05/5:51 AM
Drop one of the "drawn"s from the first two lines. Change "found" to "find", and possibly "spent" to "spent".
Re: a comment on Utensils of creation by Damien	12-Apr-05/5:47 AM
What are you saying? Are you mad because somebody zeroed your poem? Um, that's called opening your poem to evaluation (on a site called poemRANKER) and that user's prerogative.
Re: Utensils of creation by Damien	12-Apr-05/5:45 AM
"there" in the last line should be "their". Don't put commas at the end of every line, but do put it where it belongs. And some of these lines don't make sense or are simply wrong, especially the last two. I think you might have been more interested in the rhyme instead of saying what you meant.
Re: a comment on science by whispern_smoke_wisp	12-Apr-05/5:32 AM
Sorry, whispern_smoke_wisp, but, seriously, what are you talking about then? Let me try to explain what I was commenting about. For one thing, you SHOULD believe in the article, and it was clear from the beginning you don't (hence all the comments). The article's not the problem. You're a little mistaken about what it's saying, though, and maybe that's why you don't agree with it. To clarify what it was ACTUALLY saying: Dogs are not whores or parasites. They evolved loving attitudes toward humans (and were in part domesticated because they had some loving-type behaviors to begin with) so humans would provide them with food and shelter. Despite that they have pretty shallow reasons for loving humans, they DO ACTUALLY love humans, like babies do, and for the same reasons, but unlike young women who marry rich elderlies or real wholes do. Is that clear? At least in terms of what the article's talking about (and whether or not you agree with it)? Sorry again. I'm trying not to be annoying.
Re: a comment on science by whispern_smoke_wisp	10-Apr-05/9:55 PM
I think you missed the point of this 100%. What if I told you that humans evolved to love their parents so that, like parasites, they could get food and shelter? That's absolutely true, by the way.