Are you some mechanical bot that has some specially programmed ai used to pick writings of a certain nature and then comment with the default response setting? im not sure how -original- this is.. but ok. -note to self: why is p&k suddenly commenting on my stuff? -shrug- oh well, i needed something out of the ordinary these days..--

I'll look for it! T'anks!

>>This is plagerism [sic] and I've already sent the entire url, copied pg etc in. Get a life! Even to make a parody you need consent.<< No, you don't. <Putting on my pretty pedant hat,> Parody is a form of expression protected under the First Amendment here in the U.S.--it's considered fair use. The Supreme Court (aka the Felonious Five & colleagues) confirmed this in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music (92-1292), 510 U.S. 569 (1994), when (this is true) 2 Live Crew was sued by the music company that owned the rights to Roy Orbison's Pretty Woman, because 2 Live Crew did a parody of it in their own inimitable fashion. (I don't make this stuff up.) You can read the Court's Opinion here: http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/92-1292.ZO.html Justice Kennedy (who wrote the concurring opinion) set out these relevant observations: ". . . certain general principles are now discernable to define the fair use exception for parody. . . . parody may qualify as fair use only if it draws upon the original composition to make humorous or ironic commentary about that same composition. . . . It is not enough that the parody use the original in a humorous fashion, however creative that humor may be. ***The parody must target the original***[my emphasis], and not just its general style, the genre of art to which it belongs, or society as a whole (although if it targets the original, it may target those features as well)." http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/92-1292.ZC.html Just sayin'.

You obviously haven't done your homework. I suggest you view my homepages or look me up on the Imdb.com. I sir, am a bonafide dandy, and quite the lady's man. I'm gentle, handsome, and highly sophisticated. I think you should call the FBI.

I highly recommend seeking out Duckstein. http://www.holsten.co.uk/pages/brands-duckstein best beer I've ever tasted.

Thank you friend.

Oh come on, old boy. Given that you find my work so bum-crushingly intolerable that you've taken to either ignoring it completely or, wherever possible, deleting it to kingdom come, I daresay it hardly seems worth your while hearing what I have to say on the matter.

You make me laugh. Point is it's my poem and the comments section is supposed to be for comments about the poem. Now do you care to talk about the poem? You did give it a ten...

In that case I do hope you'll extend to other users the same courtesy you've so kindly bestowed upon me. It really is nothing more than attention-seeking bravado for someone to sully your work with their own silly stories. And there was me thinking that deleting a harmless two-line anecdote about a tailor and then claiming it wasn't sympomatic of some sort of vendetta wasn't going to cut it.

It certainly has nothing to do with your poems. I don't have a vendetta against you. I think your poems are bunk and I don't like the comments you make on other people's work is worse. I've stopped reading your work because there is nothing of interest to me in any that I have read. I told you what I thought and left it at that. Making a statement in no way means that I am peeved. If you were to actually comment on something then it would be left up. Making up your own story beside my work isn't going to cut it.

No problem. It's your decision, afterall. And may I say what a mature decision it is, too. It certainly isn't symptomatic of the giant vendetta you've had against me ever since I wrote some "shock humour" and you got enormously peeved.

No but my poems are not a canvas for you. Either comment on the poem or don't. Your "Look at me, I'm cutely abstract" postings can go somewhere else.