there is a name for it, I created it myself and named it seicinque, thi8s is a multiple seicinque, the basis is line 1 6 syllables lines2,3,4. 5 syllables you can have one stanza or multiples of and the rhyming scheme is aBCb dBCb eBCb and so on, try it, it's quite challenging and you can use any subjest matter with it........

Then why did you give it a 1?

Zodiac....My, my, we are getting testy. Not unusual plus the personal name calling by someone whose arguments are mostly bogus and self-rightious. I bet you would like me to "walk off a cliff." Then you could peddle your comments and opinions with no one to dispute them. I will try once again to explain reality but I doubt you are capable of understanding anything beyond your own personal bias. We can no longer view the world or universe as being separate from ourselves. Humans are part of an intrinsically dynamic universe that is in constant flow and change and reality must be, according to quantum mechanics, one which recognises the basic unity or oneness of all things. The reality is that nothing exists in isolation and our perception of a world "out there" is bogus. Still, a perceived reality is still valid in the mind of the observer who is still bogged down in a "Newtonian", classic concept of the world. In modern physics, mass is no longer associated with a material substance and particles are actually bundles of energy. So from a quantum view, I can dismiss your arguments regarding reality and take comfort in knowing that you actually believe reality exists in your dualistic mind-set. So chill out, turkey. Things are not as they seem and your arguments concerning reality are merely illusionary nonsense. And regarding the Ebert analogy, I only said I liked him as a movie critic. You are the one who turned this into an analogy, though a very weak one. Have a nice day, dipshit.

Hold up .. that's all you gotta say? Kanasai ..

yeah so do I. I like yours.

So get glasses. Cheers for the 10 mate.

I appreciated all of that. Note to self, stop going schizo on singular words and trying to accessorise them with asterisks in the middle of a perfectly good poem.

PS-Speaking purely scientifically and honestly no offense intended, would you mind very much walking off a cliff? What I mean is, do you believe that the concept of 'gravity', which forms part of the basis for most people's notions of 'reality', is really real and can be applied in a predictable fashion to almost anything; or would you say it's "that which we are taught with little or no original thought" and a "self-serving 'truth'" which is "unique" and "varies with each individual"?

Oh dear. Are you about to pop? Have you, in fact, already popped. Now dig this beat, homeslyce: The Ebert analogy is yours, not mine, from your comment of 2-Jul-04/8:35 PM. And it's a buggyload of crap, for the reasons I've given you twice already. Other than that, you've simply repeated for the tenth time that "reality is personal, variable, and unique" like some fucking mantra, while not even bothering to consider my points and otherwise blundering all over this site with the (frankly absurd) suggestion that I am somehow being closed-minded while you're not. Get over yourself, cowboy. Yes, conceptions of reality are changing practically daily, but this business about pioneers "challenging mundane and fixed realities" is a mountain of guff and you know it. Pioneers don't create new, say, territories, you dimwit, or principles, or anything else. They just find ones that are ALREADY THERE. Anybody knows that. Sometimes they're wrong, and most of the time what they discover is incomplete or subject to later questioning and revision. Anybody knows that! That's why no one bothers talking about 'reality' with any sort of preachy pulpity certainty but inveterate guffers and poets.