| Poem: Submit | Random | Best | Worst | Recent | Comments |
|
A Poem (Free verse) by BigB Slowly he turned,
He walked a few paces back to the tree,
and lay down in its shade.
His mind a blank,
Knew all he had was lost.
He was satisfied enough to let the ground engulf him,
Swallow him to the eternal blackness.
The branches hung limply over him,
And wept their tears of blood.
Up the ladder:
word splatter
Down the ladder:
depressed
Votes: (green: user, blue: anonymous)
Arithmetic Mean: 6.5555553
Posted: September 5, 2004 7:30 AM PDT; Last modified: September 5, 2004 7:30 AM PDTWeighted score: 5.7777777 Overall Rank: 1735 Comments:
I would have to agree w/ Dovina, The crappy title makes me expect a crappy poem, You have a good image here, but you need to knead it a little more.
I also think a better title, or more clarification in the poem would be in order.
potential is the word.
yeah. i'm chinese and i'm 14. i'll take note and improve
The following comes from the BBC 'Country Profile' for Singapore:
"The country was referred to - less kindly - by the writer William Gibson as 'Disneyland with the death penalty'." I find that quote highly amusing. Apparently Singapore has a system of punishments for acts such as not flushing a public lavatory. I wonder, is it illegal to break wind in public? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pa
The death penalty would provide Disneyland with greater realism, a more life-like experience. And failure to flush is a good place to start. It's a more serious offense than say, riding a bicycle in a bike lane while a mother with her pre-school child turns right without looking.
Do you know what a turkish toilet is?
I have one.
Hee hoo
I was in a rush though
Ok, if you were in such a rush why didn't you just not finish or submit the poem? Wait until you have time to make it the right way.
we're a small country.we dont have scenery or whatever. the only thing we're proud of is our country's cleanliness.Its really clean though
Aren't you proud of Singapore's prosperity?
"Once a colonial outpost, Singapore has developed into one of the world's most prosperous places - with glittering skyscrapers and a thriving port." P.S. to reply to a comment, click on the green 'Reply' in the bottom right corner of the comment to which you are replying.
Or the fact that "Prostitutes carry a yellow health card in Singapore. They must report in 'regularly' for health checks"?
Ahh... so it's physical cleanliness they care about, not moral cleanliness. Respectable Gentlemen are brutally scolded for leaving public lavatories in a state of mild dumplinghood; meanwhile, prostitutes roam the streets unhampered as the city basks in an unflushed dung-bowl of sleaze.
NO! that ain't right
Is that why you deleted my comment? Or did you click on the X instead of the 'Reply'?
i deleted it.
And did you vote zero on my poem because of my comment on yours?
NOPE! my computer is on all the time, and i dont know who uses it. Neither do i know who has used my account to vote or rate other poems. For that zero, i'm sorry.
You can change it if you want.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/country_profiles/1143240.stm
that source is unreliable!!! the prostitute thing is totally WRONG
As far as I can see, the BBC source doesn't say anything about prositutes. Why don't you have a look at it?
Zodiac brought up the thing about yellow cards from some other source. A google search will reveal a number of sites quoting the yellow card thing. For example: http://goasia.about.com/cs/singapore/l/a Oh, and for the love of Christ, learn how to reply to comments properly.
Cunny-sexer.
ambiguity in a poem is something that makes a poem so beautiful, something that is worth discussing, something worth talking about. We do not live in a black or white society, but rather one that is in shades of gray. everyone is entitled to his or her opinion and nobody can take that away from him. the world we live in is in shades of gray, and for that, I 'm grateful.
I spend too much time on the internet saying this, but here goes. The vast majority of opinions are pointless because they come from pointless people. That you have the right to an opinion is neither here nor there. Every uneducated lout has the right to an opinion. That is why a cunning system of apartheid has been devised whereby everyone can hold an opinion but noeone listens to stupid people.
Did you ever think that people read poems because they think the poet may have something interesting to say? And that the interesting thing fares best when expressed lucidly.
The poem is not too bad. Line six onward loses the thread a bit. The ground is not likely to engulf him lest still into eternal darkness. And trees do not cry blood.
255 view(s)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
A. I say: "You might like it". I am saying that there is a possibility of you liking it.
B. I say: "Maybe you might like it". I am saying that there may or may not be a possibility of you liking it.
A. "It is possible that X is possible."
B. "X is possible."
Clearly B implies A - if B is true, then A must also be true. I also think A implies B, but you don't. My reasoning is that when you say something is possible, all you're saying is that you don't KNOW that it is false. If you say "It's possible that X is possible" then clearly you don't know that X is false, so you must think X is possible.
I have been thinking about this problem for some time, and that is the only sensible interpretation I can come up with. The terrible thing is that underneath all this fiddle-faddle is the royally obvious fact that all Dovina was trying to say was "A more descriptive title might have eased my misunderstanding." Perhaps if she had had the common decency to say that in the first place, we all could have avoided a lot of silly bother. Nevertheless, I would be interested to see what people think about this problem, viz. the equivalence of A and B.
I think it's obvious that B implies A, but not obvious that A implies B. Both hold in my opinion, though I can understand you disagreeing with the latter - since that was your original argument - but to disagree with the former seems a bit odd.
The case of B implies A: If B is true, then B must be possible. So A is true. I don't think there is anything wrong with saying that something which is certain is also possible. Of course it's possible. To say it is possible is a weaker statement than saying it is certain, but it is nonetheless true.
A. You say: "Ooonscallashihough". You use the word to mean "dung". I think you use the word to mean antelope. I have misunderstood you.
B. You say: "Ooonscallashihough". You use the word to mean "dung". I have never heard the word before and cannot even begin to guess what it means. I fail to know what you mean.
Now do you see the difference? You are an exceptionally foolish young man.
But Dovina says a better title would ease her "misunderstanding or failure to know what you mean". Think carefully about that. Dovina thinks it possible that she has misunderstood the poeme. It would be oafish for her to think that unless she had assigned some meaning to the words. This rules out the case in which Dovina had merely "failed to know what the poeme means without misunderstanding it".
2. I agree that Dovina manifests an undesirable degree of oafishness in her attempt to exhibit simultaneously two mutually exclusive alternatives .
âMaybe a more descriptive title might have eased my misunderstanding,â and
âMaybe a more descriptive title might have eased my failure to know what you mean.â
Admittedly, the word âMaybeâ is not needed, so letâs just look at:
âA more descriptive title might have eased my misunderstanding,â and
âA more descriptive title might have eased my failure to know what you mean.â
When I said, âmy misunderstandingâ I was saying that I had an understanding, but it was wrong. But how could I have known it was wrong? Because I judged my original understanding of the poem to be wrong. I know that because I remember, but you could have known it too, just from the way I phrased it, and maybe you did. When I added, âmy failure to know what you mean,â it was a hands-thrown-in-the-air giving up on any more attempts to understand the poem. One reaction came before the other, neither very oafish in retrospect, and linked by the word âor.â So my comment, revised, is: âA more descriptive title might have eased my misunderstanding, then my failure to know what you mean.â Of course, I could dress it up with adjectives and allusions to the poetâs parentage.