Help | About | Suggestions | Alms | Chat [0] | Users [0] | Log In | Join
 Search:
Poem: Submit | Random | Best | Worst | Recent | Comments   

inverse square (Free verse) by ex0teric
two bodies, drifting their trajectories intersect close enough for an inverse-square relationship to develop. they pass, forever altered by their brief contact. ages come and go, their orbits, bent towards each other, intersect again. now they are closer, the cycle repeats itself; closer, closer, closer. they approach a singularity. an equilibrium is reached, a stable orbit. (or) they are flung apart, never to meet again, except by the most infinitesimal of probabilities. (or) they collide, and are destroyed.

Up the ladder: the stranger
Down the ladder: my poetic thought

You must be logged in to leave comments. Vote:

Votes: (green: user, blue: anonymous)
 GraphVotes
10  .. 00
.. 00
.. 10
.. 00
.. 00
.. 00
.. 00
.. 00
.. 00
.. 00
.. 10

Arithmetic Mean: 4.0
Weighted score: 4.9525743
Overall Rank: 8773
Posted: May 13, 2004 1:33 AM PDT; Last modified: May 13, 2004 1:33 AM PDT
View voting details
The following users have marked this poem on their favorites list:

ex0teric

Comments:
[8] zodiac @ 67.240.155.100 | 13-May-04/5:19 AM | Reply
For dozens of reasons, I don't think the inverse square law is really the one you want to use here.
[8] zodiac @ 67.240.155.100 > zodiac | 13-May-04/5:20 AM | Reply
And why did you put this on your own favorites list?
[n/a] Stephen Robins @ 213.146.148.199 > zodiac | 13-May-04/5:28 AM | Reply
REPLYING TO OWN COMMENTS

GAYNESS LEVEL 10 - ABORT! ABORT!
[8] zodiac @ 67.240.155.100 > Stephen Robins | 13-May-04/5:48 AM | Reply
Replying to one's own comments is acceptable for postscripts, fucktard. Perhaps you'd have done better to actually read your Poemranker Instruction Manual, instead of just rolling it up into a "telescope" to "spy" on your secretary's "knockers".
[n/a] Stephen Robins @ 213.146.148.199 > zodiac | 13-May-04/6:04 AM | Reply
1) If my secretary had knockers I would not be on this website at all. I would be finding excuses to rub up against her by the photocopier. As my secretary is twice my age and has smaller boobs than me I therefore conclude that to spy would require a "microscope" rather than a "telescope". As I did not get a diploma in origami from Ken Hom's School of Paper Art, I can't make a microscope from the weighty tome that is the instruction manual on how to behave on this site. So to conclude my first assertation: you are a snot gobbling quendo of failure.

2) Postscripts should be designated as such with the inclusion of a P.S. You did not do this and you therefore fail again.

3) In point of fact you are actually exceedingly gay and therefore a gaymeter is not necessary to asess your gayness. I fail but win 2v1.



[n/a] -=Dark_Angel=-, P.I. @ 212.219.223.8 > Stephen Robins | 13-May-04/7:58 AM | Reply
You clearly do no know that a telescope can be turned into a microscope by looking through the other end, and vice versa.

-0-
[n/a] Stephen Robins @ 213.146.148.199 > -=Dark_Angel=-, P.I. | 13-May-04/8:08 AM | Reply
Looking the wrong way down a telescope does not make very small things look very big, it just makes them appear further away, whereas a microscope enlarges very small things and makes them appear much bigger. However, in view of your rant with hypatia about things on which you clearly know more, I will hold my bombast at bay for the moment. So for now, I cautiously assert that you are a moderate failure of discrete medium sized proportions.
[n/a] -=Dark_Angel=-, P.I. @ 163.1.146.225 > Stephen Robins | 13-May-04/12:05 PM | Reply
To hell with caution, old boy. That knave had nothing to do with the hypatia rant; indeed his opinions on all subjects can only be described as "unbelievably appalling".
Yeah well at least I don't have a bum-like face.
Yes you do. Your roommate in your third year at Trinity told me that he once left his trousers hanging in the main lounge area to dry overnight. At about 3am he was woken by a faint scratching sound coming from the lounge. He peeked through a crack in his door and saw you trying on the trousers and walking around in them. He didn't want to bust you because it would have been really awkward, so he just crept back into his bed and kept quiet. He never told you this, but he always had trouble sleeping after that.
[n/a] Stephen Robins @ 195.92.198.71 > -=Dark_Angel=-, P.I. | 14-May-04/10:03 AM | Reply
Excuse the interjection, but what caused the faint scratching noise? were the trousers made of sandpaper? does one of the -=Dark_Angel=-'s have a skin condition?

[n/a] -=Dark_Angel=-, P.I. @ 194.222.223.239 > Stephen Robins | 14-May-04/11:12 AM | Reply
One of the -=Dark_Angel=-s is a skin tumour.

But not the one who has been accused of secretly wearing his roommate's trousers in the middle of the night.
You know as well as I that my roommate never wore any trousers, instead choosing to grow his hair down to his ankles and wrap it around his lower portions.

I guess you could call it his "jodhp-hairs"!!!!!11
[8] zodiac @ 67.240.155.61 > -=Dark_Angel=-, P.I. | 13-May-04/8:11 AM | Reply
You fail.
[n/a] -=Dark_Angel=-, P.I. @ 163.1.146.225 > zodiac | 13-May-04/6:31 AM | Reply
Moreover, postscripts that are sent as replies to your own comment will not be sent via email to the intended recipient, if indeed the intended recipient does 'receive comments by email'.
[n/a] Stephen Robins @ 213.146.148.199 > -=Dark_Angel=-, P.I. | 13-May-04/6:33 AM | Reply
I am beginning to understand now why Trinity is lauded as such a fine instituion of learning. It's because Prince Charles went there!
[n/a] -=Dark_Angel=-, P.I. @ 163.1.146.225 > Stephen Robins | 13-May-04/6:36 AM | Reply
I heard it took three attempts and a vast legion of private tutors to get Prince Charles to pass O level maths with grade C.
[n/a] Stephen Robins @ 213.146.148.199 > -=Dark_Angel=-, P.I. | 13-May-04/6:42 AM | Reply
So any old dunce with a bit of patronage and caked in rhino can get in?
[n/a] -=Dark_Angel=-, P.I. @ 131.111.212.215 > Stephen Robins | 13-May-04/7:21 AM | Reply
If you're applying to read Philosophy, you just have to be less colossally stupid than three or four other dither-brained nincompo'ops.
[n/a] Stephen Robins @ 213.146.148.199 > -=Dark_Angel=-, P.I. | 13-May-04/7:39 AM | Reply
And to study computer science? Do you need a bulging brainsack full of immense brain power? Or perchance a predilection for playing role-playing games and corduroy clothing that smell slightly of vinegar and urine?
[n/a] -=Dark_Angel=-, P.I. @ 212.219.223.8 > Stephen Robins | 13-May-04/7:57 AM | Reply
You must satisfy one of the following:

a) only ever wear black velvet suits, black silk shirts and bright single-colour ties, and walk around college scowling at everyone.

b) be an abominable offspring of a giant owl, dye your hair a different colour twice a week and lollop around college in striped knee-length socks, huge negro shorts and an Atari t-shirt.

c) style yourself as "Dr Evil" and have gay homo sex with men.
Whilst the disjunction of (a), (b) and (c) is satisfied by nearly all comp scis, I am an exception. I'm not a geek. I don't dye my hair or wear black. I hang out, I chill, I get lashed, I do sports. And overall I'm a pretty cool guy. Once I even considered smoking a marijuana, but decided not to because I thought I might die of drugs.
What about that black t-shirt you have that just says 'geek.' in white courier on the front?
On display at the University of Lincoln is a very profound piece of student artwork. The print is all black except for the single world 'truth' in white courier. It really made me think man.

Then I saw the other display next to it which was several giant photographs of a student with her baps out.
You should propose that, in the spirit of Horwich's deflationism, the word 'truth' be replaced by the infinite conjunction of all true propositions.
[8] zodiac @ 67.240.192.134 > -=Dark_Angel=-, P.I. | 13-May-04/4:22 PM | Reply
Or perhaps that, in the spirit of Carawax's Dictum, the truth of a proposition may be measured by the peculiar resonance it causes in the hearer's buttocks.
[n/a] ex0teric @ 24.10.241.104 > zodiac | 13-May-04/10:06 PM | Reply
Completely regardless of the validity of my poem, which really probably sucks anyway (though the one rating would indicate otherwise), this is the most entertained I've been in a while. Carry on.
[n/a] -=Dark_Angel=-, P.I. @ 212.219.223.8 > ex0teric | 14-May-04/12:59 AM | Reply
Excuse me but this is a -=Dark_Angel=--only discussion.
I actually find barely any compscis fall into any of those categories. Instead, they fall into one of these categories:

1. Horrible bearded pseudo-hippies
2. Smug-faced bearded animu fags
3. Sweating tubs of lard
4. Troll-faced girls
5. Squash-playing teacher's pets
6. Terrifying ethnics
7. A single really fit girl
Which of those categories include the people in my categories a) and c)? And who is 7.?
[8] zodiac @ 67.240.155.61 > -=Dark_Angel=-, P.I. | 13-May-04/8:04 AM | Reply
Oh.
[n/a] -=Dark_Angel=-, P.I. @ 163.1.146.225 > zodiac | 13-May-04/8:05 AM | Reply
Who fails?
[8] zodiac @ 67.240.192.252 > -=Dark_Angel=-, P.I. | 13-May-04/9:01 AM | Reply
Kindly cast your gaze upon my comment of 8:11 AM on this very page.
[n/a] -=Dark_Angel=-, P.I. @ 131.111.212.215 > zodiac | 13-May-04/9:01 AM | Reply
And why have you decided that your catchphrases will be "Oh." and "Jesus."? They're rubbish.
[8] zodiac @ 67.240.192.252 > -=Dark_Angel=-, P.I. | 13-May-04/9:10 AM | Reply
"Jesus." is a fine catchphrase.

I've decided on nothing. "Oh." and "Jesus." have just made more sense to me recently than "OMG you're right ;)" or "Dear Lord, you're a gibbering lunatic", respectively. That's bound to change.
[n/a] ex0teric @ 24.10.241.104 > zodiac | 13-May-04/10:03 PM | Reply
A) I like it
B) to remember that I have it.
[n/a] ex0teric @ 24.10.241.104 > zodiac | 13-May-04/10:03 PM | Reply
Perhaps I am not remembering my high school physics correctly.
IIRC, gravity is inverse square -- as two things get closer, they will attract each other more, and get closer, and so on. If I am wrong, then this whole nice little metaphor of mine is moot! >.<;
[n/a] -=Dark_Angel=-, P.I. @ 163.1.146.225 > ex0teric | 14-May-04/3:53 AM | Reply
"two bodies, drifting
their trajectories intersect
close enough for
an inverse-square relationship
to develop."

That is buncombe. What do you mean by "close enough for an inverse-square relationship to develop"? The inverse square law applies to two bodies at ANY distance, no matter how large or small. At the present moment, according to the inverse square law, your shrivell'd prune of a body is experiencing the tug of gravity from EVERY other object in the Universe. Including my own buttocks, and the buttocks of every buttock-endowed life form in the universe.
[n/a] ex0teric @ 24.10.241.104 > -=Dark_Angel=-, P.I. | 15-May-04/10:44 AM | Reply
good point, thank you. The point was more that they are close enough to be the major attractive force on each other. I will work out an edit to make that more apparant later!
128 view(s)




Track and Plan your submissions ; Read some Comics ; Get Paid for your Poetry
PoemRanker Copyright © 2001 - 2024 - kaolin fire - All Rights Reserved
All poems Copyright © their respective authors
An internet tradition since June 9, 2001