| Poem: Submit | Random | Best | Worst | Recent | Comments |
|
Reasonably Good (Free verse) by Dovina Before my birth
myself flourished
and will again
past my pseudo death
Beauty and Good demand it so
for they are bastions
strong as reason
Easy to honor the dove
hard to extol the rat
Easy to admire DNA
and hate uranium 238
Beautiful and Good
Ugly and Bad
I believe I know the difference
For I live not alone by reason
but by knowledge of Beauty and Good
Thus I surpass the waypointsâ
birth and death
with God who creates
Beauty and Good demand it
Up the ladder:
Happy birthday to myself
Down the ladder:
Biters
Votes: (green: user, blue: anonymous)
Arithmetic Mean: 5.0
Posted: March 21, 2005 9:25 PM PST; Last modified: March 25, 2005 10:48 AM PSTWeighted score: 5.0 Overall Rank: 7929 Comments:
Let's not get personal here. I was born the year of the Rat. There is no year of the dove only the Cock. Which will you extol?
You ask me to answer which I extol â the rat or the cock. Letâs not get personal here, but if I were a rat, Iâd extol the cock. If I were a cock, Iâd extol myself.
Your minds a mess.
But so are my pants.
Love the rhythm...like the word choice...and I may be misreading the message... am I to conclude (my first assumption) that you, like the symbollic God, KNOW the difference between good and bad/evil? If this is the case then your ideology is diametrically opposed to my whole entire worldview and I can't stand the message...
however, it could, by some stretch of logic, be concluded that you have no clue what you're talking about and only the symbollic God could ever truly judge these things; in which case, i applaud your philosophy and the poem as a whole...for now you get your magnificent 7 to go with your magnificent ego. Good work overall as a poem...maybe add a dash of love to spice it up or something... Peace, Sean
Dear Sean,
Iâm sorry you have a worldview. It holds a person back from receiving truth, like blinders on a horse steady it in the masterâs chosen direction. Having a worldview, you will applaud my response if it conforms and reject it otherwise, no matter what insights it contains. For that you have my sympathy. God, or a symbolic god as you say, cannot even be perceived without an underlying belief in the concepts of Beauty and Good. If all we have with which to evaluate the world is reason, then life does not extend beyond birth and death. The poemâs message is to look at Good and Beauty (Verse 3) and to say with tongue in cheek that I know the difference between good and bad, beautiful and ugly (Verse 4) Then having assured myself of what is good and beautiful, or at least the methods I will use to determine them, I surpass the waypoints of birth and death.
If you have no view of the world then you certainly cannot have a view of that which is not the world and is out of sight...
beauty and good do NOT demand that we form structures of judgment, quite the contrary, if we are to perceive anything as good or beautiful, that perception cannot be weighted down by some outside force which confines, else your world be constrained and the full beauty of that around you lost to some restricted definition that you BELIEVE you know due to your presumption that the truth has found its way to you... my point, perhaps miscommunicated, is that you cannot achieve the ends you seek, at least within the context of human interaction and behavior, by judging those human variables... ANY judgment made without ALL KNOWLEDGE, is prejuidace and false...you are NOT God....nor are you anywhere near the greatest scholar of all of history, therefore, you have not nearly enough KNOWLEDGE to judge anything... your words, like nearly all words, are subjective, and in no way assert some profound truth that has been passed over by more able minds. peace, sean p.s. sympathy is useless, save your sympathy for me and my non-judgmental worldview and use it on a dieing child in ethiopia
btw..i still like the poem...and also believe that, in reality, or, at least in application, our philosophies probably equate to an equally pleasing journey through life....
thanx for the reply and best of luck peace, sean
I think we're saying almost the same thing and tangling ourselves in words. Peace.
It seems to me that you both claim truth as something which can be picked up by an open mind and deflected by a closed one. For this to happen however would require you to recognise truth when it comes to bite you on the nose. That you believe you would recognise it to me signifies you are both attributing some kind of magical property to truth that seperates it from falsehood. Don't you maybe think that to discover something you must first be looking for it and have some idea what 'it' is and hence require preconception?
This is precisely what i mean by saying that any other conclusion leads to misuse of language so as to justify reality...
what seems to you, simply is not. the only magical property that truth contains is that it is not able to be misinterpreted. truth is only truth when properly communicated lest we seek for our meaning to be lost. it is definitely not a prerequisite to discovery that we have preconception of discovery at all; such a conclusion is the perfect examply of warping language so as to justify false reality - your practical example of antithesis? -adam and eve having no knowledge walk around an unfamiliar world having no idea of a thing called fruit and stumble upon (discover) a thing called an apple tree. they were not looking for any thing in particular, in fact, they weren't seeking out any individual thing at all, yet, they made a discovery with absolutely no preconception of anything at all except for maybe the fact that they might exist in reality...and even that, even today, is not a total truth; whether you accept that or not. in reality, i would define truth as more of a marble in a pitch black room; those who slip and fall on it usually can't find where it rolled to after they get back up...I see you're still on the ground assuming that you can describe the thing that made you fall. at any rate, i'd love to sit down over coffee and let you discover the reality of what i think, but it appears you already have some preconception of what i am, so, despite the fact (in your reality) that you are seeking me through your preconception of what i am, i doubt you'll discover what's inside because you've already deflected me off your closed mind. peace, sean
Do you ever read what you've written and think "Good Christ I write an awful lot of bollocks"?
Dear Christ this is a load of garbage. In fact, I can't find a single sentence with any sort of correctness to it except possibly "what seems to you, simply is not" (which, to be fair, I can't make enough of to figure out whether it's crap or not. Judging from how things are going, I'd guess crap.) To wit,
1) Language can't be misused to justify reality. For one reality doesn't require justification. For another, language can be defined as "a system of sounds or characters designed for representing reality", so anything language does in the area of reality is pretty much right. For another, what the fuck are you talking about? Certainly not richa's comment. I propose it's you who are clothesminded. End of story. 2) Truth is misinterpreted all the time. For example: 'The sky is blue' is true. 'The sky is blue because God painted it blue' is a misinterpretation. 3) Truth is probably never really communicated (or if it is - ie, 'God exists' - it's pretty much totally at random). Ergo, being properly communicated has nothing to do with it. 4) Oh, you're talking about justifying false reality! Well, that's a bow'ls argument isn't it, and tantamount to saying well it doesn't justify MY reality. Judging from your comments, your reality is bunk. 5) Um, God told Adam first thing not to eat the fruit of the apple tree, without their having seen it prior. So you just failed big time. 6) And so on and so on. This is such crap it makes my eyes water. Please don't ever try to argue here ever again. cheers, zodiac
Truth is something which can be picked up by an open mind and deflected by a closed one. I would not see any truth in Evolution if my mind were closed to it. I would deflect that truth. This does not assume there is any truth in Evolution, only that I would not receive it if I saw it. I think there is a lot of speculation in Evolution (which I use only as an example) but I think there is some truth there too. We are not discussing ways of distinguishing truth, only receptivity to it.
I do, as you say, attribute a magical property to truth that separates it from falsehood, but thatâs not the same as saying I know how to distinguish truth from falsehood. I donât think that to discover truth, I must first know what I am looking for. That would be saying that I know a truth â how to discover truth â before I discover truth. You can see the inconsistency in that. The important thing here is to be receptive to truth, even if comes through an unlikely source like the words of Dovina. Wouldnât you agree?
I do.
I was responding to richa, but happy you agree. You are new here and will have some trouble following the color shades of the sheathes around the comments. Here's an example of where they are hard to follow.
The theory of evolution is one of a number of examples in science where serendipity played a part. However that is not to say it simply fell into Darwins lap. Darwin recognised that within species there are also familial traits. To go from this to a theory of evolution involving concepts of natural selection and natural variation is somewhat of a jump. Darwin opened up a line of enquiry which required assumptions. If Darwin had not done this, the so called truth you see in the theory of evolution would not have reached you because there would have been no theory of evolution. What you are claiming is that those who only believe that God created the universe will not believe anything else and therefore will be obscured from truth if truth is the big bang theory. This is a perfectly arguable standpoint but it does not permit you to say that an open mind is better at receiving truth than one that uses a model to understand the world. By the way only the mentally retarded do not have a model of the world. That is perfectly measurable and the finding is perfectly robust.
I did not say that an open mind is better at receiving truth than one that uses a model to understand the world. I said that truth is something which can be picked up by an open mind and deflected by a closed one. If you wish to argue with me please argue with me and not with some straw falsity of what I say. I also did not say that having a model of the world is closed minded. I said that the important thing here is to be receptive to truth, even if comes through an unlikely source. Models are useful and not closed minded. What you are really doing here is avoiding the second paragraph in my comment because it defeats your original statement.
Models are closed minded. To be truly open minded you would have to conceive of the infinite possible models that explain a phenomena and hold them all simultaneously. This would make your brain explode. Also if you can not identify truth and you are open minded you end up back where you started. Having to pick truth from the ether of possibilities you accept might have credence (in your case everything), which you admit you are unable to do.
i.e. you miss truth anyway.
Since you will not answer my objection to your original argument and insist instead on going in other directions, alright, Iâll object instead to this new argument. Models are not closed minded. They are tools, assumptive answers to be tested. They help us think. How does that make them closed minded? You are the closed minded one for not opening your mind to receive truth from any source available to you, especially not from any woman spouting off on an internet forum.
You remind me of myself as a boy. Trapped in a wheeled-chair, terrified of the antlers under the bed.
Are you serious? My argument has been consistent from the start based on what I saw as a flaw in your reasoning. You now claim I should be changing my mind because you don't accept that flaw, and that I do not is evidence of me not being open minded enough to receive truth?!
I think you are not open minded enough to receive the truth.
I think you are too bumbling to write a precise sentence. The reason for all the speculation is that noeone knows what you are going on about. What the hell is 'truth' you keep referencing. What is an open mind. What is a closed mind. What is a mind. Where is the base unit of truth that allows truth to exist independantly of unproven propositions. Is truth good. Is truth useful if you can not recognise it. Jesus. How can I accept what you say when you are not saying anything.
Simple sentence: closed mindedness inhibits the entrance of truth. Definitions of truth are not the issue; that's a big subject of its own. Please, let's not debate what a mind is, or whether truth is good, or what propositions are. Will you please stay on one subject.
Convoluted sentence: Closed mindedness inhibits the entrance of truth. This is your base unit. It assumes things about truth such as it exists and that it is discrete. Let me ask you this. You are open minded and therefore hold truth with no way of identifying it. Is that any different from someone who is closed minded who holds truth but believes it to be wrong. If so why.
At least we agree on a sentence to disagree on. Truth does exist, I believe, and have some reasons for believing. Closed minded people receive some truth, I believe that too. But they limit the amount.
To hold truth and believe it to be wrong makes the "truth" non-truth.
At least we agree on a sentence to disagree on. Truth does exist, I believe, and have some reasons for believing. Closed minded people receive some truth, I believe that too. But they limit the amount.
To hold truth and believe it to be wrong makes the "truth" non-truth in that person's mind. That's only a word twiddle.
What is truth if you do not with any conviction believe it to be right. By the way, I never said I believed in truth. The problem with truth is that the further you advance the more fuzzy the picture becomes. Imagine a microscope with ever increasing magnification.
I believe in truth and that it can exist unrecognized. That microscope has been increasing its magnificatioin since Newton and more truth is being discovered.
Nope. With every new degree of magnification the object you are seeking to represent becomes more complicated.
Yes, but we know that particles exist in truth which Newton could noit have known about. Unless you want to argue that particles are not truth, but representations of something unknown. In that case we have more truth to learn. The difference is that I believe truth exists and you aparently do not.
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.
You haven't read all of his comments, have you?
True. I was going for the if every advance widens the detail of a picture thus making it fuzzier then to say truth exists is analgous to say divergent lines meet. However more important I believe is the way you have been arguing the truth of 'you must be open-minded to receive truth' statement which is a touch ironic yes?
Also, virtually every criticism I have ever levelled against you has been that you are too dogmatic. You are now using dogma to forward your open-mindedness argument. This is ironic too.
You have said that you believe truth does not exist. Therefore any arguement concerning the entrance of truth into a mind is unimportant to you. I don't think I'm being dogmatic.
The acceptance that truth exists is itself a dogma.
and because this site is a poetry site. Check out 'In Broken Images' by Robert Graves. His words are both precise and restrained.
http://www.poetryconnection.net/poets/Robert_Graves/4757
Robert Graves - In Broken Images He is quick, thinking in clear images; I am slow, thinking in broken images. He becomes dull, trusting to his clear images; I become sharp, mistrusting my broken images. Trusting his images, he assumes their relevance; Mistrusting my images, I question their relevance. Assuming their relevance, he assumes the fact; Questioning their relevance, I question their fact. When the fact fails him, he questions his senses; when the fact fails me, I approve my senses. He continues quick and dull in his clear images; I continue slow and sharp in my broken images. He in a new confusion of his understanding; I in a new understanding of my confusion. That's a good poem 10
If you wish to define dogma that way, then yes. I don't.
By the way the reason you find yourself positioned in the dim camp is that you have just said how one must keep an open mind to receive truth and then proceeded to tell me that to be true. On route behaving like an incredulous dunce.
That's not dunce behavior in my recognition of truth.
you do not recognise truth, you are open minded.
My open mindedness allows me to receive more truth than my closed mindedness does. A lot of rehash is going on here.
because you have failed to grasp the contradiction. You are open minded and therefore seek out more representations of truth, however you are unable say with any certainty whether something is true or not (because you are open minded).
Open mindedness does not help me to distinguish truth from non-truth. It merely allows me to consider more possible truths, and having more to consider I have a greater chance of finding the real truths among them.
Models are what you use to understand the world. All models have assumptions that must be taken as given. Therefore there is no understanding without first accepting the model's assumptions. Noeone is arguing that having what would colloquially be called a closed mind may well contribute to a persons ignorance. But as usual you went too far by spouting pretentious nonsense about open mindedness bringing truth. I have provided two counter arguments (i) Truth requires enquiry which requires assumptions to be made that are taken as correct (closed mind). (ii) The person receiving the results of this enquiry uses schemata to hold the information which itself makes assumptions taken as correct.
Open mindedness brings truth. You have said it yourself in another way. Truth does not require inquiry to be discovered. It often comes unexpected. No assumptions need be made, but they are sometimes useful. A model with its assumptions is often helpful in discovering truth, but not always. God, I hope this clears up the matter.
You started this by making some overblown claim that open-mindedness brings truth whereas closed mindedness prevents the bringing of truth. I do not have to prove the efficacy of one over the other just provide a counter-argument that there are aspects of closed mindedness that bring about truth. This is sufficient to prove you wrong.
If you show me some isolated case where open mindedness inhibits the entrance of truth or closed mindedness aids the entrance of truth it does not defeat the argument.
It is hardly isolated. You have this fuzzy picture where somehow the brain absorbs 'truth' and 'truth' exists in the brain without context.
Truth can exist in the brain without context - another thing we aparently disagree on. 1+1=2 exists in my brain and is true whether I know any context regarding it.
Do not be silly. Explain to me how 1+1=2 it true without reference to its context.
Let's be formal about this, Dovina.
Def. A closed mind of domain D is a mind that deflects all propostions that are not in D, regardless of whether or not said propositions are true. Def. An open mind is a mind that accepts a proposition if and only if it can convince itself that the proposition is true. Dovina's Theorem. There exist true propositions that are picked up by an open mind and deflected by a closed one. Proof. Let C be the closed mind with the empty domain. C therefore deflects all propositions, so in particular it deflects the true proposition "Dovina has a woman's brain." Let O be the open mind that thinks Dovina has a woman's brain. By definition, O accepts the proposition "Dovina has a woman's brain" and we have the theorem. QED -=Dark_Angel=-, P.I.'s Important Theorem. For every open mind, there is an equivalent closed mind that accepts and rejects the same propositions. Proof. Let O be an arbitrary open mind. Let D be the collection of all propositions that O can convince itself are true. O is clearly equivalent to the closed mind with domain D. QED. Corollary. All Dovina has said is that different minds can disagree about the validity of a proposition. :(
-=Dark_Angel=-, P.I.'s Important Theorem is not very important. Hereâs why. If there were an equivalent closed mind for every open mind â equivalent in every way except openness or closedness â then the two minds belong to the same person. The rest of your argument breaks down.
Corollary: Dovina has said that minds have the ability to open themselves to the possibility of truthful input and they have the ability to close themselves to it.
But you have no way to decipher what truth is because your mind is open. Therefore all you have done is taken truths and nontruths from outside of your head and placed them inside of your head. Except you have not because your head is not big enough to hold and conceive of the infinite number of models that could explain a given phenomenon.
Oh, this.
Please explain yourself.
Now fathead.
Utter, utter tosh. By "two minds M and N are equivalent", I mean: For every proposition P, M is open to P iff N is open to P. That in no way entails that the two minds "belong to the same person".
Trivial example: I replicate my uncle in an Uncle-replicator. Uncle and Uncle-2 are both open to exactly the same propositions, at least for a short while after replication. Therefore Uncle and Uncle-2's minds are equivalent with respect to openness. But Uncle and Uncle-2 are separate people. QED. Is this really beyond you, or are you deliberately being dim?
Trivial example: Uncle and Uncle-2 are identical. They have a choice to be either open or closed minded. So what?
You objected to -=Dark_Angel=-, P.I.'s Important Theorem. I've rebutted your objection. That's what.
The concept of positing something, and then defending it without positing all sorts of other things willy-nilly, is quite, quite unknown to you.
Let me simplify it for you: Closed mindedness inhibits the entrance of truth.
You plainly haven't understood the consequences -=Dark_Angel=-, P.I.'s Important Theorem.
Let M be any mind. Then the Theorem states: There is a closed mind C, which accepts and rejects exactly the same propositions as M. Corollary: For any open mind O which does not "inhibit the entrance of truth", there is a closed mind C which accepts and rejects exactly the same propositions as O, and therefore also does not "inhibit the entrance of truth". Corollary: The set of closed minds is exactly as accepting of the truth as the set of open minds. Corollary: Closed-mindedness does not inhibit the entrance of truth. Corollary: You're a dim.
That's the same as saying as much water goes through a closed valve as through an open one. And "dim" is pase - zodiac said so.
passe
Yes, and I shall defend that as well.
Premiss: For any possible open valve O, there is a possible closed but leaky valve L, which lets through exactly as much water as O. Premiss: For any possible closed valve C, there is a possible open but blocked valve B, which lets through exactly as much water as C. Therefore: The set of open valves lets through, collectively, exactly as much water as the set of closed valves. Corollary: Closed-valvedness does not inhibit the flow of water. Your confused because your thinking of the set of *actual* valves, and mistakenly inferring things about closed-valvedness in general. Zodiac is a dim.
Yes, but Premise 1 is impossible because no real valve leaks as much water when it is closed as when it is open, else we must redefine the word "valve." Likewise Premise 2 fails. Sorry, but I only wish to discuss possibilkities. Why did you change zodiac from chode to dim?
No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No.
Things you've failed at since joining this site: * Arithmetic * Science * Programming * Elementary set theory * Not being unbelievably thick This time it is basic first order logic you have failed at. "For every possible open valve, there is a possible closed valve that permits as much water." That is the premiss. "Any valve lets through as much water closed as it does open." That is your thicky misunderstanding of the premiss. You fail. Good Christ, you fail.
Of course you must not admit I am right, but must instead point to unfounded past "failures." At least I know by this you have no response.
My response is right there. You know, in my reply. Here it is again:
"For every possible open valve, there is a possible closed valve that permits as much water." That is the premiss. "Any valve lets through as much water closed as it does open." That is your thicky misunderstanding of the premiss. There it is. Have you spotted it now? Do you understand the response? Do you understand how it relates to what you said? Do you understand how it relates to the discussion as a whole? Do you understand how it is a defense of my original theorem? Do you even have any idea what this thread is about? Every time I think I've finally understood how thick you are, you absolutely blow my estimate out of the water. You have an unbounded capacity for failure.
Besides, your past failures are absolutely real. You've proven over and over again that you're exceptionally ignorant about anything to do with maths, logic, science and philosophy. Of course you don't think you're ignorant. If you did, you'd probably shut up. It's just that everyone else knows you're ignorant, and that your head is full of cotton-wool.
Trying to explain something to you is like trying to feed a worm tablet to a cat.
I understand what you are saying and disagree for reasons I have stated. We have reached an impass.
Incredible. You outrageously accuse -=Dark_Angel=-, P.I. of having no response, then when he is kind enough to point out that his response had been glaring at you for several hours, you post this obstinate, wet, unbelievably feminine non-response. "I understand what you are saying and disagree for reasons I have stated." Yes you stated some reasons, but those were posted before my rejoinder, which pointed out your failure, and which you seem unwilling to address because, for whatever reason, it has been deflected from your brain glandes. Now who's being closed minded? It isn't kindly -=Dark_Angel=-, P.I. who has no response. It's you. You fail. Good Christ, you fail.
Lets review:
You want to talk about a valve that allows water to pass when it is closed, even as much water as when it is open. I donât want to. Impass. Happens every day. No reason to get upset. You call me obstinate, wet, feminine, a failure, closed minded (you forgot dimtard) Fine. Discuss it with someone who cares.
No, you haven't grasped it.
I'm not talking about a "valve that allows water to pass when it is closed, even as much water as when it is open". For all I care, that valve doesn't exist. It's irrelevant. (Look at the words I am writing, and use your brain to understand them.) I am talking about two SETS of valves. One is the SET OF ALL POSSIBLE OPEN VALVES, and the other is the SET OF ALL POSSIBLE CLOSED VALVES. Here is what I am saying. This is what my IMPORTANT THEOREM is saying: Take any OPEN VALVE in the SET OF ALL POSSIBLE OPEN VALVES. Call this valve Ted. Then there is some CLOSED VALVE in the SET OF ALL POSSIBLE CLOSED VALVES, called Roger, who is leaky -- and therefore lets through exactly as much water as Ted. Ted and Roger are not the same valve. Clearly they aren't, because Ted is OPEN and Roger is CLOSED. I am also saying the following. Take any CLOSED VALVE in the SET OF ALL POSSIBLE CLOSED VALVES. Call him Gretchen. Now there is an OPEN VALVE in the SET OF ALL POSSIBLE OPEN VALVES, called Nancy, who is blocked, and therefore only lets through as much water as Gretchen. Clearly, Nancy and Gretchen are not the same valve, because Gretchen is closed, and Nancy is open. Do you understand? Do you understand how this is utterly different to talking about a SINGLE VALVE which lets through as much water open as it does closed? Here is a COROLLARY: to the theorem: There is a one-to-one correspondence between the SET OF ALL POSSIBLE OPEN VALVES, and the SET OF ALL POSSIBLE CLOSED VALVES. Take any valve, open or closed. Then there is a valve in the other set that lets through just as much water. THEREFORE: The set of all possible open valves, collectively, lets through exactly the same amount of water as the set of all possible closed valves. THEREFORE: Closed-valvedness in itself is not a determinant of how much water a valve lets through. THEREFORE: Closed-valvedness does not inhibit the flow of water. Do you understand now? You haven't understood before, although you've repeatedly claimed to. Do you get it now? I don't care if you agree or disagree. I just want to know if you understand what I am saying.
I understand. The problem is your definition of "valve." Even if the two valves are different, they are still valves. By your definition, a closed valve can let as much water through as an open valve of the same kind. I'm not willing to discuss valves that do not work like real valves.
No.
I did not say the valves are "of the same kind." That's something you just invented. Stop imagining that I am talking about a single valve, or a single type of valve, that is identical open and closed. That seems to be the main source of your confusion. I am simply saying that there is a one-to-one correspondence between two sets. You can't seem to fit that into your head. Do you know what a one-to-one correspondence is? Think about the set of positive numbers, and the set of negative numbers. For every positive number, there is a negative number with the same absoulte value. For every negative number, there is a positive number with the same absolute value. Therefore there is a one-to-one correspondence between the two sets. Do you accept that there is a one-to-one correspondence between the set of all possible open valves and the set of all possible closed valves?
That is to say, "A one to one correspondence between the set of all possible valves letting through G gallons of water per second and the set of all possible closed valves letting through G gallons of water per second, for all possible amounts G".
I do not accept the one-to-one correspondance of valves as you describe them insofar as they are remotely connected to anything real. This is a nice little game you wish to play, but frankly, I'm not interested.
If you two aren't careful you will disappear in a colossal cloud of stultified guff.
I can't think of a more stultifyingly colossal cloud to disappear on then with my long-time friend and lover, -=Dark_Angel=-, P.I.
Also, I'm still waiting for your reply to my posting the link to the lisp.org style guide.
In particular, the bits that directly contradicted your claims that:
a) Redundant comments e.g. "end hunger" are "good practice". b) Vertically lining up brackets is "good practice". I suppose you didn't actually read the guide, or if you did, that it just fell out of your ear.
I have read it and find some of it useful to programming in AutoLisp, a varient of LISP. The style shown in my poem is more common in AutoLisp than the style shown in the link. AutoLisp is the only LISP I know well enough to comment on.
Zodiac is very intelligent, and I think he's quite funny. But hes still a dim.
You are assuming that the sets of open valves and leaky valves have the same cardinality.
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 man, are considered a dim from both sides of the aisle.
"Two minds open to the same proposition belong to the same person" is Dovina's Bum Incrowde Theory #1.
Again, a fine straw man.
Stop saying straw man. You've said almost exactly those words twice now on other poems. One of them is here: http://www.poemranker.com/poem-details.j
Isn't it strange how I say "straw man" when you posit some theory to my credit and the theory has no relationship to what I was saying or any implication drawn from what I said?
Dovina: Two people who agree on something are an incrowd.
zodiac: Two people who agree on something are the same person. Dovina: That's not what I actually said. zodiac: Whatever, I was exaggerating. What you actually said is wrong, too.
That's not what I actually said, and your exaggeration is wrong.
This whole comment is simply awful.
Get rid of the spaces between stanzas--what is space anyway but the thing that separates us? I'm drunk, I like this, 9.3.
Spunky.
I have revised it because nobody understood it the way I did. Of all the comments, here and elsewhere, I did not see that I had communicated. I hope these changes will clarify.
Jesus christ I hope you don't think all these comments actually had anything to do with your poeme. The poeme takes the voice of a dunce claiming to know the difference between good and bad. The dunce narrator does not have to be correct in his/her theories in any way. S/he is a dunce. I thought that was obvious in both versions.
I had no delusion that the comments pertained to the poem. You think the narrator is a dunce, and I could agree or not agree, depending on which position I wish to view the poem from. Since you do not believe truth exists, or at least it appears you do not, this kind of poem seems silly to you. All I ask is that you consider it from several viewpoints besides you own.
238 does not rhyme with rat. -0-
It doesn't? I hadn't noticed.
350 view(s)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Again, you're trifuling with some petty point and ignoring the poem.
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?
And way to answer my questions!