on Cancer by mindsigns
25 Mar 2005, 10:24 PM
Hey, did you ever notice that no one likes cancer?
on The White Room by thepinkbunnyofdoom
25 Mar 2005, 10:23 PM
Q1: Would you ever consider writing a poem about an actual experience of yours?
Q2: Would you ever consider having an actual experience?
Q2: Would you ever consider having an actual experience?
replying on Reasonably Good by Dovina
25 Mar 2005, 10:22 PM
One can acceptably use "dim" provided one includes a knowing smirk at its passeness, as -=Dark_Angel=-,P.I. has.
You, young lady, have no knowing smirk.
You, young lady, have no knowing smirk.
on The Narrow Way by Jeremi B. Handrinos
25 Mar 2005, 10:17 PM
LOL
on Amsterdam One by durr_T_hip_E
25 Mar 2005, 10:16 PM
Really? I was under the impression only Americans carry backpacks anymore.
on Sisters of mercy by titan69
25 Mar 2005, 10:10 PM
The best part is "pail moonlight".
on Beard my Homemade Negro Jesus (Improved! With AIDS!) by Everyone
25 Mar 2005, 10:07 PM
So I bearded him once (feeling larkey)
With a rich Putinesque Oligarchy.
But the crowd wasn't wooed;
I was fined for two lewds
And one Conduct Unbecoming a Darkey.
With a rich Putinesque Oligarchy.
But the crowd wasn't wooed;
I was fined for two lewds
And one Conduct Unbecoming a Darkey.
on calling by celticskatermatt1
25 Mar 2005, 10:05 PM
"nailed" should be "nailt"
"spilt" should be "split"
"spilt" should be "split"
replying on The Symbol by Dovina
25 Mar 2005, 9:53 PM
You're wrong on both counts. Neither of them are symbols of death.
** TEST **
1. Show a crucifix to almost anyone in the modern world - preferably Christian, but really anyone will do.
2. Ask them, what does this represent to you?
Q: Would you say the crucifix/cross (sic) is still a symbol of death even though almost no one in the world has thought that for centuries?
Q2: Would you say it still is because it's a symbol of death for you, Dovina?
Q3: Would you ever consider writing a poem about something you HADN'T read on an email forward?
** TEST **
1. Show a crucifix to almost anyone in the modern world - preferably Christian, but really anyone will do.
2. Ask them, what does this represent to you?
Q: Would you say the crucifix/cross (sic) is still a symbol of death even though almost no one in the world has thought that for centuries?
Q2: Would you say it still is because it's a symbol of death for you, Dovina?
Q3: Would you ever consider writing a poem about something you HADN'T read on an email forward?
replying on Reasonably Good by Dovina
25 Mar 2005, 9:46 PM
That's not the difference at all. You believe that the truth of particles exists. richa believes that the truth does exist and particles is just someone's best guess about it. Do you see the difference? I bet not.
replying on Reasonably Good by Dovina
25 Mar 2005, 9:44 PM
ibid.
And way to answer my questions!
And way to answer my questions!
replying on Rusty knife to the kidney by INTRANSIT
25 Mar 2005, 9:43 PM
No, no. Of course I understand. It's just funny you said "I can only speak from a sexual position." Kind of gave me, you know, a mental picture.
replying on No Worries by Dovina
25 Mar 2005, 9:40 PM
1) The sexual position. (cf. http://www.poemranker.com/poem-details.j
2) Maybe I'm wrong. I know! I'll ask. Would you consider yourself more in the lines of Asaph, God, the wicked (ie, also ironic quoter of Asaph), or the pure-hearted?
Now, I know you're going to say: none of them, I'm to openminded. That's crap. If you weren't sympathetic to at least one (and probably only one) of them, you wouldn't have any reason to have posted/plagiarized this.
Now I know you're going to say, I don't operate by the principles of reason, so there. That's crap, too.
Sorry for acting so presumptuous about the whole thing, but I'm going to the beach tomorrow and don't want to drag out the process of you giving a real answer over, who knows, weeks. Please, give it some thought.
2) Maybe I'm wrong. I know! I'll ask. Would you consider yourself more in the lines of Asaph, God, the wicked (ie, also ironic quoter of Asaph), or the pure-hearted?
Now, I know you're going to say: none of them, I'm to openminded. That's crap. If you weren't sympathetic to at least one (and probably only one) of them, you wouldn't have any reason to have posted/plagiarized this.
Now I know you're going to say, I don't operate by the principles of reason, so there. That's crap, too.
Sorry for acting so presumptuous about the whole thing, but I'm going to the beach tomorrow and don't want to drag out the process of you giving a real answer over, who knows, weeks. Please, give it some thought.
replying on Reasonably Good by Dovina
25 Mar 2005, 9:19 PM
"Two minds open to the same proposition belong to the same person" is Dovina's Bum Incrowde Theory #1.
replying on Vestigial Tail by zodiac
24 Mar 2005, 4:09 AM
I really meant she shakes like the noun cream - which, I believe, shakes differently from water, juice, or Fanta. Not to mention that it shakes into milkshakes.
Which of the following associations would you guess I'm trying to make:
a) The narrator has just discovered he's gay, or
b) The narrator has just discovered he has an abnormally large circumsized cock?
I have to say, though I'm rooting for b), I suspect a).
Which of the following associations would you guess I'm trying to make:
a) The narrator has just discovered he's gay, or
b) The narrator has just discovered he has an abnormally large circumsized cock?
I have to say, though I'm rooting for b), I suspect a).
replying on stab in the dark by not_a_philosopher
24 Mar 2005, 4:03 AM
1) Would you say that if people stopped believing in God, He'd stop existing?
2) Would you say that if everybody started believing in a new kind of supreme being (one called "Zchtfv", maybe), He would start to exist?
3) I didn't say anything of the kind. I know this isn't a question.
4) Are you familiar with the reasoning that goes:
If I believe in God and God exists, then I go to heaven;
If I don't believe in God and God exists, I'm pretty much fucked;
If I believe in God and God doesn't exist, I'm no worse off;
If I don't believe in God and God doesn't exist, I'm no worse off;
So, logically, it's safer (ie, better) to believe in God than to not believe.
?
2) Would you say that if everybody started believing in a new kind of supreme being (one called "Zchtfv", maybe), He would start to exist?
3) I didn't say anything of the kind. I know this isn't a question.
4) Are you familiar with the reasoning that goes:
If I believe in God and God exists, then I go to heaven;
If I don't believe in God and God exists, I'm pretty much fucked;
If I believe in God and God doesn't exist, I'm no worse off;
If I don't believe in God and God doesn't exist, I'm no worse off;
So, logically, it's safer (ie, better) to believe in God than to not believe.
?
replying on Rusty knife to the kidney by INTRANSIT
24 Mar 2005, 3:39 AM
"I can only speak from a sexual position" - Dovina
replying on The Populous by durr_T_hip_E
24 Mar 2005, 3:35 AM
Incidentally
1) If you weren't proven right by either yourself or others, would your brain explode?
2) Plenty of people have the ability to label things truths or falsehoods, especially when discussing things in whose creation God was pretty much uninvolved - like English use or the specialized jargon of philosophy. In fact, it's possible that an educated human is more qualified to call poor English or Philosophy-lingo use "bollocks" than God. Particularly given the likelihood that if God called something other than real bollocks bollocks, he'd either vanish in a puff of trump or the thing discussed would instantly change into a real and perfect bunch of bollocks. Neither of which, I think you'll agree, is something any of us want to see in our lifetimes.
3) Oh, sorry. You were being sarcastic. Then your comment simply doesn't make any sense.
4) I'm self-righteous about English use, which happens to be the subject at hand and something I've spent the last god-knows-how-many years getting a very specialized education in order to discuss accurately. By the way, I don't think you know what self-righteous really means. The real slur was "snit" - for which, I see, you've got no answer :-(
5) I spent 1,000 comments trying to make this site - or at least the spelling and poetry writing aspects of it - more adult. Give it about five shots and you'll see what I'm talking about.
1) If you weren't proven right by either yourself or others, would your brain explode?
2) Plenty of people have the ability to label things truths or falsehoods, especially when discussing things in whose creation God was pretty much uninvolved - like English use or the specialized jargon of philosophy. In fact, it's possible that an educated human is more qualified to call poor English or Philosophy-lingo use "bollocks" than God. Particularly given the likelihood that if God called something other than real bollocks bollocks, he'd either vanish in a puff of trump or the thing discussed would instantly change into a real and perfect bunch of bollocks. Neither of which, I think you'll agree, is something any of us want to see in our lifetimes.
3) Oh, sorry. You were being sarcastic. Then your comment simply doesn't make any sense.
4) I'm self-righteous about English use, which happens to be the subject at hand and something I've spent the last god-knows-how-many years getting a very specialized education in order to discuss accurately. By the way, I don't think you know what self-righteous really means. The real slur was "snit" - for which, I see, you've got no answer :-(
5) I spent 1,000 comments trying to make this site - or at least the spelling and poetry writing aspects of it - more adult. Give it about five shots and you'll see what I'm talking about.
replying on The Populous by durr_T_hip_E
24 Mar 2005, 3:17 AM
a) populous
b) populace
Without checking, which of the above is an adjective? Just curious. I'll know if you checked.
b) populace
Without checking, which of the above is an adjective? Just curious. I'll know if you checked.
replying on Reasonably Good by Dovina
24 Mar 2005, 3:11 AM
For the record, that's the most preposterous of your many preposterous suggestions for "opposite of hate".
1) Would you say that whether you love or hate something - specifically, to cite the poem, uranium 238 - is a petty point?
2) Would you say the poem could possibly succeed even if it failed on that point?
1) Would you say that whether you love or hate something - specifically, to cite the poem, uranium 238 - is a petty point?
2) Would you say the poem could possibly succeed even if it failed on that point?