This poem (and apparently those poems you like) is second person. Third person would be "he", "she", "they", "[person's name]" First person was like your reply (above).

I prefer to write my poems in the third person because I enjoy reading poems that seem like they are written about me.

"...Even as I hastily scrawl this note in my pantry, I can hear Lord Castlehaven at the top of the back stair. 'I say, Rawlins, come here!' he calls brightly - and again, his voice betraying only the slightest quiver. I must not appear too quickly. Master would hate to learn how keenly I look forward to these 'discussions of domestic matters' in the library..." - Diary of an English Butler (1630)

1. Philosophy doesn't affect me, except for the possibility of being harmed by someone who has a philosophy which allows for such things. 2. A figure of speech, and redundant. 3. I mistyped. It's Zeno, of course. 4. I have a wife.

There are only two ways in which a Gentleman can assume a position of utter dominance over his butler. The first is to consume him. The second, to bugger him.

Buggering is strictly disciplinary, then?

The worst thing was that the temp was only in the low 50's. Very cold when you're soaked and the wind is coming at you off of the river. All you can do is keep drinking to stay warm and have a good time. :o1

"There is a world of difference between 'being a homo' and 'maintaining discipline among the servant classes'. The former is gay to the max; the latter is the duty of any self-respecting Gentleman of wealth and standing." - from "Bugger Your Butler" by Mervyn Touchet, Earl of Castlehaven

1. Most discussions of philosophy are unlikely to affect you, but then most discussions of science or politics are either. That isn't to say that philosophy, science and politics don't affect you. 2. What is a "real possibility"? 3. There is no such person as "Xeno". Perhaps you are thinking of "Xena". 4. You do not have a wife. Stop pretending you do.

"No, if I believed in nothing, if I did not have a soul that truely spoke to me, but consciously felt the need to attach myself to "something", that something would be an affirmation not a denial of my flesh and blood desires." Look at yourself, my boy. Look what you've become. Here is the form of your argument: PROOFE THAT P: 1. I believe that P. 2. For if not-P, I would not believe that P. 3. Therefore if I believe that P, P. 4. Therefore P. 5. Q.E.D. Which is so badly lodged in its own codswallop that the Mayor has commissioned a special Unbuncombe Brigade to destroy it before it becomes so swollen that it blocks out the sun.

I believe in souls because The Real Ghostbusters (tm) can detect them using the following device: http://www.collectorman.com/images/S608.jpg

Wrong. The following device, as used by The Real Ghostbusters (tm), can detect souls: http://www.collectorman.com/images/S608.jpg

(This is the -=Dark_Angel=- you despise, not 131. I have no qualifications in philosophy.) Science does not say "atoms exist". There are merely a number of mathematical models of the Universe which assert that matter is composed of atoms. These models can be used to predict the behaviour of the Universe. We can then use experiments to check whether or not these predictions are accurate. The job of the physicist is to (a) formulate a model of the universe (b) see if the model matches experimental data. An example is classical Newtonian mechanics, which was shown to be a good model (in the sense that its predictions matched experimental results) for everyday objects travelling at ordinary speeds. However, when physicists were able to test objects travelling at speeds close to the speed of light, experiments showed us that at such speeds Newton's model could only be described as "unbelievably appalling". My point is that my only 'belief' concerning atoms is that there exist mathematical descriptions of the universe which model matter as being composed of atoms, and which have been shown to be good models (in the sense that the predictions they make are reasonably consistent with experiments designed to test those predictions). The trouble with souls is that I don't even know what a soul is meant to be. People who talk about souls have an utterly vague, guff-soaked notion of what they think a soul is, yet to them it seems obvious what a soul is because they have been so bum-crushingly deluded from birth that the question has never even lodged itself in their brain glandes. Atoms, on the other hand, are very clearly defined, so the consequences of assuming the existence of atoms in some model can be clearly described. "Plus all scientific theories are held as language. How can you possibly verify the transferability of language to the physical." If you're saying what I think you're saying, then what you're saying is basically what I've said above. Atoms are mathematical objects in a mathematical model of the universe. I suppose you would say they are 'held as language'. Fine. But I don't 'transfer atoms to the physical' in the sense you seem to be suggesting. Suppose - and this is just a simple example - that in some model we assume matter is made of atoms, which are defined as spheres of radius x cm and mass y kg. Now suppose we use our model to see what would happen if we wack your face with a mallet. Suppose our model says that your face will splatter over an area of up to 10 meters squared. To test the model, we wack your face with a mallet and measure how far it splats. But alas! We actually find that your face splatters over an area of 110 meters squared! Our model is therefore buncombe, and must be changed. That's all science is.

Do you have a dossier on us all?

Do you believe you have a 'soul' because certain actions make you feel guilty?