| Poem: Submit | Random | Best | Worst | Recent | Comments |
|
I Win. (Free verse) by LintyWeenis Maybe it was my calling Him a jerk,
that pissed him off the most.
It might have been when I shouted his name
"I hate you,Holy Ghost!"
But whatever it was
he got me good,
he thinks he's really won.
That's what I thought
when I logged on
and all my writings were gone.
I did not cry
I did not try, to understand why I was in such shit.
Instead I grabbed a tiny flame
and church with my name all over it.
Up the ladder:
6/11/04 11:10-11:15 AM
Down the ladder:
Mr. Campbell's final journey
Votes: (green: user, blue: anonymous)
Arithmetic Mean: 5.1666665
Posted: September 18, 2004 8:38 AM PDT; Last modified: September 18, 2004 8:38 AM PDTWeighted score: 5.0448236 Overall Rank: 6993 Comments:
[n/a]
LintyWeenis @ 64.12.117.13
|
18-Sep-04/8:39 AM
|
Reply
This was written in memory of all the poems, stories, songs and journals lost in the mysterious erasing of the one folder than held them all. *drinks my poison* Here's to you.
While I am sure you are very qualified to judge your own poetry, being the one who excreted it from your sticky hands, you may like to let others vote on your poems, and refrain from voting on them yourself. Granted, your own self-opinion is a completely accurate indicator of how good your poetry actually is and self-absorbtion is the only way to get an honest objective picture of yourself, and also granted that the number of IPS from which you are able to vote "anonymously" runs in direct proportion to the value of your opinion, I must ask you not to do so, if only so that those who are not as great and important as the poetry God you most indubitably and immutably are can have their humble opinion included in equal weight to your own.
The best poets are surely the best critics. They are the most important critics of their own work. If poemranker were blessed with any fine writers, that writers opinion would be more valuable than anyone elses. Therefore their voting on their own poems would give a truer reflection of how good the poem is. If the poet voting on his own work were not very good then the value his poems attained would be false. That is not a problem though because that person does not matter anyway.
Excellent!
Please name for me one good critic that you know of besides some sad teenager who's spat vaguely praiseful comments on one of your poemranker posts.
PS-Is Roger Ebert a good filmmaker? Was Coleridge a good poet?
If ace poets were crap critics they would throw away all their good ideas and keep all their bad ones. Do I have to talk you through the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent again?
A good poet is a good critic. Kenneth Tynan is a good critic. Kenneth Tynan is a good poet. is bowl's.
Maybe you should try explaining it to yourself, you fucking numbwad. You just botched it all over. Now, before you go spitting all over the place, clunking your head on nearly every thing, please take a look at your comment of 19-Sep-04 and tell me which of the dimtard parts of your above "syllogism" most closely matches your blundering rambles of that date, and which one you were supposed to be proving. And if you're thinking of mouthing off about the musical proficiency of bumming the constable again please take a long flying run into a very near wall.
PS-Obviously "Kenneth Tynan is anything other than an funny shaped pole-hat" is bow'ls. Why don't you try naming me one good critic?
One was just making the point that to prove good poets make good critics requires one to name good poets and not good critics. You requested me to name a good critic. Irrelevant!
ps-your ps was the most needlessly complicated sentence ever.
"to prove good poets make good critics requires one to name good poets and not good critics" is obviously not the case. The set of {best poets who also happen to be best critics} should be exactly the same as the set of {best critics who also happen to be best poets}. That it's not is set to be the enduring smudge on the underclothes of your repute here. Give it up.
I asked if you knew one good critic because I think you're talking entirely out of your ass, not because I care whether your argument is true or not (I know it's not.) PS-My last PS is two sentences. Do you find "Obviously 'statement X' is bow'ls" to be inordinately complicated?
If I made a mistake it was with the original posting. 'The best poets are the best critics' should have read 'the best poets must also be fine critics'. Sets are now irrelevant because it is entirely possible that there are simultaneously (good critics that can not write poetry) and (no good poets that are not good critics).
Kenneth Tynan said a critic (what he meant was a critic that was not a good poet) was someone who new the map but could not drive the car. My argument is simple. A poet that does not know what makes could poetry can not possibly 'arrive' at good poetry. As an educated young man one would have thought you would be the first to agree. I am presuming you have no problem with the bit about stupid people don't matter. The PS question, well it did have effectively two negatives (anything other than) and (is bowl's).
"The PS question, well it did have effectively two negatives (anything other than) and (is bowl's). "
Wrong.
As we were questioning whether the statement 'Kenneth Tynan was a good critic' is true one would need to transform 'is bow'ls' to is not true. 'Anything other than ass hat' is the converse of 'ass hat' and that makes two negatives.
"whether the statement 'Kenneth Tynan was a good critic' is true" is not what we were questioning. We were questioning whether "The best poets are surely the best critics."
That whole sentence is improperly phrased, ungrammatical, and needlessly ambiguous. You might just have said, "As regards the statement 'Kenneth Tynan was a good critic', your 'is bow'ls' means approximately the same thing as 'is not true' (or some other such negation)." At any rate, this is still not the case. "Is bow'ls" is an affirmative statement, simply describing the condition of being like a bow'l, I imagine. And you don't know how to use "one" correctly. You just think it makes you sound kind of scholarly and hard to argue with, when it really just makes you sound pretty dim. "Anything other than ass hat" is not what I said. Please, try to quote me correctly. As far as I can remember from undergrad Intro to Logic and Proof (Course Average: a respectable B+), the converse of something is not negative. And what you're talking about isn't really a converse, anyway, so just shut up.
My use of one referring to 'anybody who wanted to comprehend the sentence' is perfectly valid. I suggest if you believe the use of 'one' and other pomposities on this site is to make the writer appear scholarly then it is you who are the dim.
'That Roger Ebert is anything other than ass hat is bow'ls' can reasonably be translated as 'that Roger Ebert is not (negative) ass hat is incorrect'. Your use of bow'ls is only ever used when you disagree with a statement. It is therefore logical through induction to assume that your understanding of bow'ls is 'I believe that to be incorrect.' Final point. I could tell you I studied reason and argument and got a first for the module, but a more chilling reposte to your boast would be that we have a doctor on this site. And his name is doug.
I disagree with you on the bow'ls thing. Consider the sentence:
"It is sunny." It doesn't contain any 'negatives' in your sense of the word. But it is semantically identical to: "It is not overcast." Does that mean it contains a negative? No. The fact that "bow'ls" can mean "incorrect" doesn't mean you're being redundant if you say "It is not bow'ls". Your use of "incorrect" as the interpretation of "bow'ls" is slightly arbitrary as far as the number of 'negatives' is concerned. You could equally interpret "bow'ls" as meaning "positively bumcombe!". That doesn't have any 'negatives'. Do you get what I'm saying?
The arbitrariness of number of negatives did cross my mind. The comment about zodiac's sentence being overcomplicated remains though. Perhaps a better criticism would be that if the sentence were an equation it would require further simplification.
No; a better comment would be "That's a convoluted sentence." I wouldn't bother trying to draw naughty analogies with mathematics. In fact, the best comment of all would be "bow'ls".
As for the original point of this discussion, which was that ace poetes make ace critics, I tend to agree. By "critic" I don't mean someone who writes about poemes, slagging them off with panache, or praising their "frustratingly oblique irresolution". I simply mean someone who knows cack writing when they see it. I think the first step towards being an ace poete is to have ace taste in poemes. If you didn't have good taste, your haphazard guff splats would be bizarre mixtures of random geniusness, and mediocre fiddle-faddle. They'd be raging cow pats of insanity - peradventure the odd, flukey slice of splendid cow; the rest? Pat!
As far as the "one" thing goes, it strikes me that the best (if not the only) reason to use "one" in a sentence as you have is to give it some kind of polite, educated, abstract quality. Since you'd already said "As we were questioning etc etc", that was already gone all to shit. Using "one" in some sentence here is fine, if that's your thing. But using "we" and "one" in the same sentence (to mean approximately the same thing, at that) just sounds gay.
Re: "I suggest if you believe the use of 'one' and other pomposities on this site is to make the writer appear scholarly then it is you who are the dim." That's not at all what I said. I said you were using them to appear scholarly, and by incorrectly using them you were making yourself sound dim instead. With that middle bit, I'm going to suppose you're not trying to quote me, since if you are, you're the world's most floundering turd. Re: "a more chilling reposte to your boast would be that we have a doctor on this site. And his name is doug." Chilling indeed. Here's a bit selected more-or-less at random from dougsoderstrom's oeuvre: "I agree with you as you do have a very good point. However, as you can see, I did make provision for your well-made point in that man, having been "melded into society/socialized/brain-washed" is, I feel, moved, by the evolutionary force, to cooperate with those within "his own family" (his national group) in order to defend himself/his group of fellows by killing the enemy.......... in order to survive." And I don't know what boast you're talking about. I don't remember claiming to be anything on this site except a recent Grad Student in an Accredited Poetry School, Heir to a Milwaukee Jerky Czarship, and a current teacher of Retard Islams in Karak, Islamland - all but one of which is true.
I think you are being silly on purpose.
Whatever do you mean?
Sasha, although your opinion means about as much to me as a pile of dog snot, one thing bothers me. The self-voting thing. Now I don't know how many times I have to check everything for evidence of this self-voting before it gets through your oh so thick skull, but I'm tired of it now. If I were to vote on my own crap, then certainly, I would vote on it from a 3rd party point of view. And since that's the case, I don't vote on my own stuff. Also, I really can't stand anonymous votes because they leave no comments. I do value opinion, well most opinions, and when the whole annonymous thing happens, well, it does nothing but put a number on the score. I want comments. If everything I write from now on gets no votes at all, I want comments. So Sasha, perhaps you'd like to shake some salt and pepper on that foot so it'll be easier to suck on.
Learn how to click on the 'Reply' button you bastion of filth.
Tell me, what's the difference here?
Bastion of filth. Wow. Give that Dictionary a round of applause.
The blindingly obvious difference is that you can use the comments' indentations to reconstruct the hierarchy of discussion.
I can't stand anonymous votes either. But if you can't, then kindly stop peppering my poems with anonymous "1"s like urine in snow.
The IPs of the anonymous voters on this poem tell me you lie.
If you really can't stand anonymous votes I suggest you leave before you have a breakdown.
It's irreverant in a good way.-9-
I'd give it a ten except that because of the last line I did a google seach and found no "Church of LintyWeenis." I guess it must be an Amish sect(No computers allowed)? 254 view(s)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
