Free verse № 112767
I Win.
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.
27 comments
PS-Is Roger Ebert a good filmmaker? Was Coleridge a good poet?
A good poet is a good critic.
Kenneth Tynan is a good critic.
Kenneth Tynan is a good poet.
is bowl's.
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?
ps-your ps was the most needlessly complicated sentence ever.
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?
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).
Wrong.
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.
'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.
"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?
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!
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.
Bastion of filth. Wow.
Give that Dictionary a round of applause.
The IPs of the anonymous voters on this poem tell me you lie.
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)?
Log in to add a comment.