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

It's Time (Lyric) by PoeticXTC
It's time that makes us It's time which breaks us It's time we take responsiblity at hand. It's time that fakes us It's time which takes us It's time we all make a stand. It's time that heals us It's time which kills us It's time we find a cure. It's time that fills us it's time which steals us It's time we should all mature. It's time that fails us It's time which bails us It's time we survive on our own. It's time that hails us It's time which sells us It's time we should not be alone. It's time that finds us It's time which binds us It's time we come together as one. It's time that minds us It's time which blinds us It's time we light the way for the sun. It's time that sold us It's time which holds us It's time we put our dreams in range. It's time that molds us It's time which olds us It's time we give our lives a change. It's time that makes us It's time which breaks us It's time that fakes us It's time which takes us It's time that fills us It's time which steals us It's time that heals us It's time which kills us It's time that fails us It's time which bails us It's time that hails us It's time which sells us It's time that finds us It's time which binds us It's time that minds us It's time which blinds us It's time that sold us It's time which holds us It's time that molds us It's time which olds us It's time that we stop making excuses for our downfalls. It's time which we start making a reality of it all. It's time we stop blaming time, for wasted, on time we do not have. It's Time... It's Time!

Up the ladder: Pop the Pill
Down the ladder: fog

You must be logged in to leave comments. Vote:

Votes: (green: user, blue: anonymous)
 GraphVotes
10  .. 00
.. 00
.. 02
.. 10
.. 10
.. 10
.. 00
.. 00
.. 00
.. 00
.. 10

Arithmetic Mean: 5.6666665
Weighted score: 5.179294
Overall Rank: 4830
Posted: December 20, 2005 8:26 PM PST; Last modified: December 20, 2005 8:26 PM PST
View voting details
Comments:
[6] crazyknight @ 202.56.231.116 | 21-Dec-05/7:05 AM | Reply
Its time u realise,
time is not important.
For the finite, it doesn't really matter,
for it really makes no difference.
For the infinite, it doesn't really matter,
for its there and there..........
[n/a] PoeticXTC @ 137.139.192.56 > crazyknight | 21-Dec-05/10:08 AM | Reply
Yes TIME is infinite
but WE are not.
[5] zodiac @ 69.132.67.140 > PoeticXTC | 21-Dec-05/1:00 PM | Reply
Hooey. Have you any basis at all for thinking time is infinite, or people (in any of a dozen senses of the word) are not? Hooey.

PS-It's not time what makes us.
[7] cyan9 @ 217.40.63.105 > zodiac | 22-Dec-05/4:34 AM | Reply
Its as infinite as the length of the british coastline.

PS-Its the love that does its thing
[5] zodiac @ 70.109.2.131 > cyan9 | 22-Dec-05/7:51 AM | Reply
Yes, that is the poet's answer. Do you have anything that makes sense?
[7] cyan9 @ 217.40.63.105 > zodiac | 23-Dec-05/2:32 AM | Reply
The british coastline appears to be of finite length, get a tape measure; however when you start looking at every rock, and measuring around every rock the length of the coastline rapidly expands, as it does the more and more detail you look at it, thus if it were possible to look in infinite detail the coastline would be of infinite length, thus as you look further and further into the detail, you come closer and closer to the conclusion that it is inifinite. Applying the same principle to time, it depends on how much detail you want to look at it, and whether you believe that discrete time intervals exist. You could come to the conclusion that time is infinite even if you knew that the end of the world was tommorrow, based on your scientific belief and acceptance of differing theorums. Personally I believe that there are minimum size particles, and discrete time intervals, yielding finite lengths of time and coastline.
Am I making sense? ji, ji , ja, jub , da da da, berrrrr, brum
[n/a] ALChemy @ 24.74.101.159 > cyan9 | 23-Dec-05/5:23 AM | Reply
Are you familiar with Zeno's paradox?
http://www.mindspring.com/~mfpatton/zeno2a.htm
[5] zodiac @ 70.109.2.131 > ALChemy | 23-Dec-05/7:39 AM | Reply
In the Zeno sense, cyan9 would have done just as well saying the length of one Cornish headland was infinite. Or his penis.
[n/a] ALChemy @ 24.74.101.159 > zodiac | 23-Dec-05/2:45 PM | Reply
Bet Zeno got alot of headland from the ladies with that line.
[n/a] Dovina @ 17.255.240.138 > ALChemy | 26-Dec-05/1:53 PM | Reply
Zeno is very annoying. He is advocating the thesis that we ought not to follow our senses, but reason and logic in formulating beliefs. When the senses and logic conflict, he contends that the senses are the less reliable of the two, so they should be disregarded. His arguments get most of their power from appeal to the foundational assumption of Logic--The Law of Noncontradiction. This law is the thesis that a claim is true or is false.

Most of my claims are both true and false, therefore I do not exist. Not all the ladies were won over by Zeno and his lines.
[5] zodiac @ 69.132.67.140 > Dovina | 26-Dec-05/2:18 PM | Reply
If anything, Zeno's proposing the opposite: that, logically, nothing functions. You can reach the door, although you should never be able to. Ergo, logic's occasionally bum. I dunno, maybe the music was playing a little loud and you thought he said you had fat thighs, instead of you're looking nice.
[n/a] Dovina @ 209.247.222.81 > zodiac | 26-Dec-05/9:11 PM | Reply
Zeno is annoying because he mocks logic by misusing it, or he thinks it's the answer for everything. I heard him right. He said my fat thighs look nice. You can take it either way.
[n/a] ALChemy @ 24.74.101.159 > Dovina | 27-Dec-05/3:37 AM | Reply
No, Zeno's not so annoying as he is delusional. His great folly is that he assumed mathematics and science weren't governed by the same faulty senses. Mathematics is just abstract symbolism for things we percieve as consistant. Define zero without using mathematics. It's nothing, so it can't exist and if it doesn't exist why does it appear in mathematics? Yet wothout it computers won't operate. The tape measure is governed by mathematics and so is limited by the limitations of mathematics. Take a computer that is programmed to measure something down to the infinate fraction and have it measure something that is exactly a yard long and the computer will never finish measuring. Zeno himself is his greatest contradiction. There is no logic beyond our senses that we know of.
[n/a] Dovina @ 17.255.240.6 > ALChemy | 27-Dec-05/11:52 AM | Reply
I agree with most of what you say. But to assert that "there is no logic beyond our senses that we know of" is to say we cannot know logic in a real way. Then we cannot say that numbers exist in a real world, the number 332, for example, because 332 is logically deduced. We cannot look at a group of things and say that 332 of them are in the group without going through a counting or grouping process - logical deduction. I believe that constructs such as these exist in a world that exists and that they are inseparable from it.
[n/a] ALChemy @ 24.74.101.159 > Dovina | 27-Dec-05/2:23 PM | Reply
You're assuming that you can't sense something in a real way. Even Zeno didn't make that assumption. We seem to think we have some magical thing in our brains that allows us to be logical without using information we've obtained from our senses. Whether it be memory (A replay of something experienced through sense) or instinct (a preprogrammed response developed from our ancestors sensed experience) or abstraction (a symbolic representation of experience used to symplify things) or deduction (a mixture of memory and instinct and abstraction)
332 is a symbol. What if say 2 of them were twins? Then on a genetic level there are only 331 unique individuals. See it depends on what or how you're counting. Even though the group hasn't changed you can come up with different numbers based on what you're looking for. The numbers only exist as symbols for grouping things in common that we percieve to be in common. Another analogy: You're the only person on earth and you see double sometimes. If you see birds in a tree and they aren't singing how do you know how many birds are in the tree. See senses are a requirement.
[n/a] Dovina @ 209.247.222.92 > ALChemy | 27-Dec-05/3:15 PM | Reply
Our senses are requirement to perceive that there are 332 of them (objects like apples or birds). Any way we come up with that number, our senses are involved. On that basis I thee wed. But I was referring to the number itself, not the perception of it. Matrimony exists, I believe, without married people. And before there was anyone to perceive 332 of them, they still existed. Logic is the process of determining the number 332 as different from some other number, independently from perceiving. Logic might deduce 332 planets, rotating about some star, for example, planets that are imperceivable. The process of logic seems to me basic to the orderliness of the universe, and I think it exists in its own right. Perception confuses us sometimes, but logic seems to work even without perception. And on that difference, I thee anul, and count it a happy marriage.
[n/a] ALChemy @ 24.74.101.159 > Dovina | 28-Dec-05/2:10 AM | Reply
Logic is not logical without perceptual verification or influence. Even if some super mathematician worked out mathematically the likelyhood of 332 planets orbiting that star is 100% he still needs to use information obtained from the senses to imagine the concept and to see the star in the first place. You seem to think that if you started a super-computer with no programming except a binary code and it had no interaction with anything but itself than it would somehow
miraculously figure out everything around it anyway.
Happy marriages are boring.
[5] zodiac @ 70.109.2.131 > ALChemy | 28-Dec-05/6:34 AM | Reply
"Perceptual verification" is also logical deduction.

Suppose your scientist deduces 332 planets. Then he looks through his telescope and sees 332 dots. (If he's using a radio telescope he sees 332 splotches of radio waves that look like what he's deduced stars' radio waves look like, not the stars themselves, but that's beside the point.) In the end, he has to logically deduce that the 332 dots he sees are stars. Even if he were to construct a spacecraft and land on each of 332 "planets", he would at some point or level have to deduce that, for one, the matter he was standing on comprised a "planet" and this "planet" orbits the sun he was considering, and for two, that the sensations he was experiencing meant he was "standing" on "matter". Is his conclusion - that a particular star has 332 planets - any less logically deduced because he's seen the planets or stood on them? I'd say no. But I have a feeling -=Dark_Angel=-'s going to get back from the Orkneys and tear us all new ones on this. Best to go on about our business and pretend this whole thing never happened.
[n/a] Dovina @ 209.247.222.85 > zodiac | 28-Dec-05/7:29 AM | Reply
Your deference for the incredulous -=Dark_Angel=-,P.I. borders on ludicrous.
[5] zodiac @ 69.132.67.140 > Dovina | 28-Dec-05/5:25 PM | Reply
ZODIAC: You misused "incredulous".
DOVINA: No I didn't.
ZODIAC: Okay, you used it like a dope. "for", too.
[n/a] ALChemy @ 24.74.101.159 > zodiac | 28-Dec-05/10:11 AM | Reply
But still what he's deduced is based on information he's obtained from the telescope, books he's studied and countless other pieces of data he's obtained. All originally through his senses. If you're refering to logic as information not immediatly at hand but stored in memory and then arranged in a useful manner than fine, OK but it still all begins with the senses. Even Helen Keller had to start with a word she learned at an early age through hearing before she went deaf. Then only through touch could she be taught any further. In short there is no sense in such logic.
[n/a] ALChemy @ 24.74.101.159 > ALChemy | 28-Dec-05/10:47 AM | Reply
Sorry Zodiac I meant to put that under Dovina's reply.
By the way D.A. P.I's response is likely to be along the lines of: "Without any sense whatsoever I can tell you how many planets orbit any given star by using this calculation: x² + 7x + 53 = 11/3 ."
[5] zodiac @ 69.132.67.140 > ALChemy | 28-Dec-05/5:27 PM | Reply
You've missed the mark on -=DA=-. Dovina will call this deference. Then I'll call her a slob. And so it goes. Care to join us in the Poemranker Dance of Death?
[5] zodiac @ 69.132.67.140 > ALChemy | 28-Dec-05/5:36 PM | Reply
I'd say there's no such thing as "information" in its own right, just things you've heard and decided are true, for any number of logical reasons.

The question you should ask -=Dark_Angel=-,P.I. when he gets back is "What is the minimum you'd have to program a supersupercomputer with for it to deduce everything else?"

DOVINA: Deference!

ZODIAC: Christ, he's a programmer and philosopher. What was I supposed to do, spit in his eye?
[n/a] ALChemy @ 24.74.101.159 > zodiac | 29-Dec-05/12:38 AM | Reply
I agree. My only point was that these things must first be obtained through the senses before they can be processed into information. Logic is how we use information. Sometimes in aquiring more information. I will say we obtain information that we think is false too and even subliminal info that we don't even know we've obtained. So logic and truth don't always have to be there at least at the start.
[n/a] -=Dark_Angel=-, P.I. @ 81.151.148.245 > zodiac | 29-Dec-05/5:13 PM | Reply
When you say 'deduce everything else' what do you mean? Do you mean deduce all true statements? It can be easily proven that there exist functions which are uncomputable (i.e. for any such function f there is no algorithm* to compute f(x) for all x in the domain). One such function is the function H that maps any computer program P, and input data D, to True or False, depending
on whether P halts on input D, or loops forever on input D:

i.e. H(P, D) = True if and only if program P halts on input D.

The upshot of all this is that there are true statements that are undeducible. Clearly any machine that could 'deduce everything' would have to accept these statements as given. There are infinite such statements. So there is no finite upper bound on the minimum you'd have to program a supersupercomputer to deduce everything. The interested reader is encouraged to have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem

* Caveat: by 'algorithm' I mean 'Turing machine'. This covers all algorithms (and a lot more) that can be written on any computer, in any language, today. There might be an as yet undiscovered magical means of computation that could solve such problems, but if such a means exists, only Jesu would know about it, and it would be His little secret.
[5] zodiac @ 69.132.67.140 > -=Dark_Angel=-, P.I. | 29-Dec-05/9:19 PM | Reply
I understand there have been cases before where hoboes exposed to the rudiments of Algebra independently 'invent' all the rudiments of, um, Calculus and Table Manners. I guess I was asking how much a person (or supersupercomputer) would have to know in order to do that. More realistically, I was probably wondering if you could tell a supersupercomputer about, say, single-celled organisms and have it predict Pop Idol.

On a more-or-less unrelated note, a woman named Barbara Rickard of West Sussex, England, ran a mile in 8 minutes, 14 seconds, wearing Wellington boots filled with custard.
[n/a] ALChemy @ 24.74.101.159 > zodiac | 30-Dec-05/1:25 AM | Reply
See?
[5] zodiac @ 24.148.234.30 > ALChemy | 30-Dec-05/6:39 AM | Reply
Um, no.
[n/a] ALChemy @ 24.74.101.159 > zodiac | 30-Dec-05/3:54 PM | Reply
I didn't totally miss my mark.
[n/a] Dovina @ 69.175.32.104 > ALChemy | 30-Dec-05/4:46 PM | Reply
Nor did I. Deference all the way!
[n/a] Dovina @ 209.247.222.85 > ALChemy | 28-Dec-05/7:39 AM | Reply
Happy marriages are not boring because the logic they stand on is independent of verification. Although I have substituted "logic" for "love" it works in its own right. It is not necessary to verify the existance of 332 planets to know that the logic used in deducing their existence is good. If the planets turn out to be figments, the logic still stands, because it is there - part of the universe as much as any other part. We can argue about the quality of certain "logical" processes. but that's another discussion. I only want to assert that love and logic exist.
[n/a] ALChemy @ 24.74.101.159 > Dovina | 28-Dec-05/10:34 AM | Reply
Yes and little fairies flying around your head exist too if you define them as invisible creatures that you can't observe in any way. I'm not saying that love and logic don't exist. I'm just saying what they are depends on the eye of the beholder. Happy marriages are boring because they rely on ignorance and lack of conflict. Sure the two in the marriage don't think it's boring because they can't observe their marriage being that they are the subject of observation and so they need a third party to intervene.(It's at the core of quantum physics) What they see as exciting is each other and so they don't see the boringness of their stability. Now if you mean by happy marriage "The Honeymooners" than I say but it's the conflicts that make it so exciting and also make the resolves so romantic.
And by "resolves" I mean Ralph bending Alice over the kitchen table and just before shoving it in yelling..."TO THE MOON ALICE. BANG, ZOOM, TO THE MOON!
[n/a] Dovina @ 17.255.240.138 > ALChemy | 28-Dec-05/11:00 AM | Reply
Little fairies may fly around my head and happy marriages may exist because, and only because, I perceive them. If you are saying that the same applies to logic as an integral part of the universe, then the honeymoon is over, and we must start throwing things at each other in the kitchen. Just rmember how dismally Ralph's insuations always ended up.
[n/a] ALChemy @ 24.74.101.159 > Dovina | 28-Dec-05/1:48 PM | Reply
The universe can, did and someday will exist without logic as it has and will exist without us. Hardly integral darlin. Are you trying to say there's some logic that exists beyond the mind of living creatures? Wow. I give up. I don't know what you're insinuating with words like insuations but I believe I'll finish this debate the way Ralph always ended up. By swallowing my pride and saying "Baby, You're the greatest". Have a happy New Year Dovina.
[n/a] Dovina @ 209.247.222.94 > ALChemy | 28-Dec-05/2:04 PM | Reply
Well, what can a girl say when he's poured on the appearance of having swallowed his pride and told her she's the greatest? Oh, yes, she can say "Thank you, Dear, I knew you'd see it my way." And so I wish you a Happy New Year, which happens upon another complete revolution about the sun, following logical precepts, put into action long ago. Now off to work with you, and don't forget the milk.
[5] zodiac @ 69.132.67.140 > Dovina | 28-Dec-05/5:30 PM | Reply
Hey, this is a really amazing conversation for two people who, for all appearances, have little first-hand experience of marriage. I've found it really, really informative. Would you greatly mind continuing it indefinitely? I'd be ever so interested and informed.

re "Put into action":

You're doing it again. Yes, yes, you know it makes no difference in your meaning, etc, etc, etc, to refer to something occuring naturally as "made" or "put into action". That's all fine. But *could* you phrase it my non-clodly way if you chose to? I bet not.
[n/a] Dovina @ 209.247.222.99 > zodiac | 28-Dec-05/7:47 PM | Reply
So kind of you to impart true experience in marriage to our ramblings. Without it, we might have blundered on for ages.

When I say "Put into action," I imply a Putter. If you say the laws of nature came about naturally, which can only mean spontaneously in this context, you deny God's input, and that conflicts with your previously stated belief in God.
[5] zodiac @ 69.132.67.140 > Dovina | 29-Dec-05/8:50 AM | Reply
By every definition of "belief" we've used on poemranker, I don't believe in God. I might have previously said so on poemranker (undoubtedly for some perfectly understandable reason I've since forgotten). Or you're misquoting me. I'm inclined toward the former.

Actually, I bet you're thinking of the Pascal's wager comments here: http://www.poemranker.com/poem-details.jsp?id=122114 . I wasn't saying I believe in God. Logically, I refuse to rule out the possibility of God's existence, since there's no evidence that he does or doesn't exist, and (as we define God) such evidence cannot reasonably exist. Of course, I could have a vision, a giant finger could appear in the sky pointing to a sign that says "-=GOD=-", or I could die and go to heaven (or not go to heaven). In any of those events, reason's pretty much going out the window, which is why I feel comfortable saying "reasonably exist". I'd like to think that in any of those events I'm not going to be surprised, while you probably are. That's a lot of conjecture, though, since another name for God is pretty much Big Surprise.

I also think God makes a really handy literary device. Maybe that's what you're thinking of.
[n/a] Dovina @ 209.247.222.95 > zodiac | 29-Dec-05/10:11 AM | Reply
I like surprises - Big Surprise - that's good.
[n/a] ALChemy @ 24.74.101.159 > zodiac | 28-Dec-05/11:59 PM | Reply
The fact that I'm not married means I'm more likely to be an impartial judge to characteristics of marriage.
[5] zodiac @ 69.132.67.140 > ALChemy | 29-Dec-05/8:37 AM | Reply
The fact that I'm not black means I'm more likely to be an impartial judge to characteristics of blacks.
[n/a] ALChemy @ 24.74.101.159 > zodiac | 29-Dec-05/9:21 AM | Reply
Sure.
As long as you can suppress any raicist thoughts you might get.
[n/a] -=Dark_Angel=-, P.I. @ 81.151.148.245 > ALChemy | 31-Dec-05/4:50 AM | Reply
Long ago, all people were Black. Then God made a special lake which would turn a person's skin white when he bathed in it. God sent an animal to each tribe, telling them where the lake was. To the Africans, God sent an iguana. If you've ever seen an iguana walk, you'll know how slow they can be (they move each leg back and forth a couple of times before taking the next step.) By the time the iguana had reached the Africans, the lake was already drying up. Add to this the fact that Africans were a naturally lazy people, and it comes as no surprise that by the time they got to the lake it was but a mere puddle. In desperation, they walked over to the puddle and bent over putting their hands flat on the ground to mop up the remaining splodges. That's why Africans are black, apart from the soles of their feet and the palms of their hands. It's also why they hate iguanas.
[n/a] ALChemy @ 24.74.101.159 > -=Dark_Angel=-, P.I. | 31-Dec-05/5:34 AM | Reply
I've always wondered.

Being that I work with actual Africans(you know, born and raised in Africa) I can tell you I've still got no argument against you.
Tell me do you think American Black people work so hard and have so many jobs because we trained them so well.

It might be a hard call for you to make because you're English and if you stumble across a black person over there 9 times out of 10 it'll turn out to be that guy from Fine Young Cannibals.
[n/a] -=Dark_Angel=-, P.I. @ 81.151.148.245 > ALChemy | 31-Dec-05/8:18 AM | Reply
I'm not as English as you think. I was born in Africa, left when I was four, but still return regularly to see how the old place is getting along now that the British Empire has gracefully withdrawn. I might even have more claim to being legally (as opposed to ethnically) African than you, despite not being black. As for my Englishness, it's true I live in England, was educated there, speak with an English accent, drink tea, have a butler, approve of the Gold Standard, and abhor ethnics of all kinds, but you have to go back a couple of generations to find an Englishman in my family. My mother's side is Irish to the 10th Century, with a few unfortunate dollops of French and German aristocracy, and my father's family is Scottish. Above all, I consider myself a Gentleman.

As for the tale of how Africans came to have black skin and white palms, I heard it in South Africa, needless to say, from a white Afrikaner.
[n/a] ALChemy @ 24.74.101.159 > -=Dark_Angel=-, P.I. | 31-Dec-05/11:26 AM | Reply
We have more in common than you think.
But that aside, all the Afrikaners I know think South Africa is still pretty much run by English buisnessmen. This is why many of them migrated north and became Muslim and swore off custard forever. They hated you guys that much. Now they're talking with the Chinese about joining forces, going south and killing all the englishmen and dragging their bodies through the streets. They plan on calling the great raid "Custards last stand".
[n/a] Stephen Robins @ 84.13.140.120 > ALChemy | 10-Jan-06/7:10 AM | Reply
That last comment is a complete lie. South Africa is run by Aids, for Aids. Don't believe M'beki; its infected him and made him its ally in its quest for world domination. it is real and it is powerful, if we are not careful it could spread outside of the blacks and gorillas who mate with each other and consume the whole world in some kind of pandemic
[n/a] ALChemy @ 24.74.101.159 > Dovina | 29-Dec-05/12:24 AM | Reply
These precepts are only logical to us because we percieve them as logical. No logic made these precept they just came into being through action and reaction. Even the bible doesn't say god made the universe because he thought it was the logical thing to do. He just said let it exist. Probably because he just felt like doing it. As a matter of fact some logic is considered forbidden in Genesis. Logic has little to do with being right. It's just a way of organizing information to suite your needs. The Natzis used logic to convince people the killing Jews was a good thing. Was that right? Depends on your point of view. Logic is a human function not some mystical force that governs the universe. Over time we have learned to hone our grasp of reality enough that our logic tends to stay consistant with the ways of the universe. Yet this conversation is proof that we still have a long way to go.
[n/a] Dovina @ 209.247.222.95 > ALChemy | 29-Dec-05/10:07 AM | Reply
Do you believe that numbers (whole numbers, integers) exist in the absence of intellegent beings? Or are they figments that we have developed to help us organize our world?
[5] zodiac @ 69.132.67.140 > Dovina | 29-Dec-05/11:30 AM | Reply
Christ, this is just awful. Please stop. Please, please stop.
[n/a] ALChemy @ 24.74.101.159 > Dovina | 29-Dec-05/3:54 PM | Reply
No, but I do believe in the Letter People.
[5] zodiac @ 70.109.2.131 > cyan9 | 23-Dec-05/7:27 AM | Reply
Yes, you're making sense. But no, I don't believe the British coastline is infinite. It's very, very long, surely, and would take a very, very long time to measure. Just not an "infinite" amount of time.

On a similar note, I just read that the German lunatic Otto Leuben once bet that he could turn a deck of cards in a specific order. He turned cards every day, ten hours a day, for ten years before he succeeded, after about four-and-a-half million tries.
[5] zodiac @ 70.109.2.131 > cyan9 | 22-Dec-05/8:25 AM | Reply
Actually, sorry. I don't mean to give you a hard time. We thought for awhile you were gone. I'm sure I'm not alone in being glad you're back.

I should tell you I believe poets should avoid making large unsupportable pronouncements (ie, "Time is infinte").

SOMEONE'S OBVIOUS RESPONSE: You're saying poets shouldn't talk about time or infinite time! Your a dick!

ZODIAC: That's not at all what I'm saying. I'm saying poets should talk about time being infinite in supportable, poetic ways. The easiest way I can think of is something like this:

The hobo said
"Time as infinite".
I didn't know what
to think about that, but then
I walked out under the stars and
it all seemed very infinite.
The end.

You see the difference? (Hint: Mine has hoboes.) Both my poem and the poem above leave you with the impression that time is infinite. But my example doesn't meatclub you in the head with the idea. Mine isn't susceptible to attack from people saying "time isn't infinte, your a clod". Mine supports its assertion, albeit rather sloppily, with the infiniteness of nature. Mine acknowledges that it's just opinion or feeling. Mine includes dramatic action, poetic imagery, metaphor.

SOMEONE: Your poem's not better. Your a dork.

ZODIAC: Mine is better. You don't know what you're talking about.

SOMEONE: This poem is true to PoeticXTC's true self and feelings. He shouldn't have to change that. Fuck u!!!!1!!1

ZODIAC: What, PoeticXTC's 'true self' is trumpeting vague unproveable truisms like "It's time which olds us" about and not ever considering, poetically or otherwise, that his idea might not be the correct one? I don't believe it. But if that's the case, then yes, I do think PoeticXTC should change *that*. QED.
[7] cyan9 @ 217.40.63.105 > zodiac | 23-Dec-05/2:46 AM | Reply
ME: I agree with the hoboes bit, I believe that anything can be improved with the introduction of hoboes, but even better, midgets, theyre amazing.

SOMEONE: Fuck you in the eye!

ME: Err Sure.

ZODIAC: I think Im being too hard on you, you might run away

ME: Fuck you in the eye! twice!

ME: Have been busy for a while, + will be busy over xmas, but will be back with a vengeance in january. When Im used to a person, piss taking is fine, but with new sorts I tend to get agitated and spew steam out my ears whilst roaring "What did you Say?", it would be difficult for you to go too hard on me these days.

ZODIAC: Thats nice. Mines still got hoboes therefore mine is the best. QED
[7] cyan9 @ 217.40.63.105 > zodiac | 23-Dec-05/2:47 AM | Reply
Have a good xmas by the way if I dont get a chanc to reply.
[5] zodiac @ 70.109.2.131 | 22-Dec-05/9:06 AM | Reply
Rhyming dictionary.
[5] zodiac @ 70.109.2.131 > zodiac | 22-Dec-05/9:15 AM | Reply
That is, whether you believe these are true is irrelevant. You were just making rhymes. If you'd kept this up to "It's time what lords us", you'd have had to say "It's time who [former US president Gerald] Fords us." Is rhyme a very reasonable thing to base your beliefs on? No. Religions start that way. As you should know, seeing that "Jesus" half-rhymes with both "pleases" and "wheezes".
[n/a] PoeticXTC @ 205.188.117.13 > zodiac | 6-Jan-06/7:25 PM | Reply
u again Zodiac.... please give it a break. Your comments are not constructive and your ignorance is annoying me.
[n/a] ALChemy @ 24.74.101.159 > PoeticXTC | 7-Jan-06/5:00 AM | Reply
A hammer and nails aren't constructive either if you don't use them.
331 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