Re: a comment on Give it up Max by Stephen Robins	Ranger 86.142.241.69	22-Jan-07/3:36 AM
It's the caps and oversized socks which strike the fatal blow. When compared with a gleaming set of whites, and a hat with a brim wide enough to shade the pavillion, well, there can be no such comparison. The question is, though, was two hours long enough to finish a kingsized Coke and an imperial-galactic-overlord sized tub of popcorn?
Re: a comment on Stripping the willow by ecargo	Ranger 86.142.241.69	22-Jan-07/3:32 AM
It's all about Bill Bailey, really.
Re: a comment on Give it up Max by Stephen Robins	Stephen Robins 213.146.148.199	22-Jan-07/3:29 AM
I saw the Oakland A's play the Minnesota Twins. Firstly what rubbish names. I watched for about two hours and thought they were just warming up but apparantly the game had just finished in a comprehensive stalemate.
Re: a comment on Stripping the willow by ecargo	Stephen Robins 213.146.148.199	22-Jan-07/3:27 AM
She was an absolute behemoth. Terrifying. Never Mind the Buzzcocks looks terribly tired, the attempt to rejuvenate it will always fail while they have VioletSuede's twin as one of the captains. I absolutely loathe Phil Jupitus.
Re: a comment on Give it up Max by Stephen Robins	Ranger 86.142.241.69	22-Jan-07/3:18 AM
Come on, it's an American sport. How could you possibly pick up your two million dollars if you don't get a freebie move? Are there actually any rules to baseball, or is it just rounders played on steroids?
Re: a comment on Dream Grower by Enkidu	Stephen Robins 213.146.148.199	22-Jan-07/3:17 AM
Good comment--soiled images.
Re: a comment on Stripping the willow by ecargo	Ranger 86.142.241.69	22-Jan-07/3:15 AM
To be fair, I only watched it because I was massively ill and couldn't do anything else. TV time is usually only for Match of the Day and Never Mind the Buzzcocks, which has gone downhill rapidly since arsehole Amstall took over. Bring back Lamarr. You know, I don't think I ever talked to VioletSuede. Was she really like that?
Re: a comment on Give it up Max by Stephen Robins	Stephen Robins 213.146.148.199	22-Jan-07/3:15 AM
That would be terrifying. I have never understood how not hitting the ball three times allows you to advance to go. I think you have posted in the safest place if you don't want anyone to see it.
Re: a comment on Give it up Max by Stephen Robins	Ranger 86.142.241.69	22-Jan-07/3:12 AM
I'd submit it but 99% of the poemeranker users aren't qualified to read its content, and I fear getting comments about baseball.
Re: a comment on Molecules of Paint by Dovina	Ranger 86.142.241.69	22-Jan-07/3:10 AM
You might get away with 'spec', if the reader's in a perceptive mood. 'Resignly' has to be changed though, in my opinion. 'Crimson' ends with a weak syllable, and I pronounce 'Artistes' with 'Ar-' being also a weak syllable. That being said, I think you lot over in America might do it differently. So yes, you can get away with that too, I expect.
Re: a comment on Give it up Max by Stephen Robins	Stephen Robins 213.146.148.199	22-Jan-07/3:08 AM
Ranger, that is the best thing you have written. No one played with a straighter bat and a benter knee.
Re: a comment on Stripping the willow by ecargo	Stephen Robins 213.146.148.199	22-Jan-07/3:05 AM
I knew you would like Vicar of Dibley. Unfortunately I can't stand Dawn French, she is like VioletSuede whose one joke is being fat. In fact I can't stand any comedy which didn't have its genesis on Radio 4.
Re: a comment on Give it up Max by Stephen Robins	Ranger 86.142.241.69	22-Jan-07/3:03 AM
Here's your Christmas present: Dream Gower (sonnet) by Ranger Shall I compare thee to a morning's play? When England open first on Lords' fine ground And Aussies o'er the world watch in dismay As fifties! hundreds! double tons abound With front foot forward - front knee bent, the click Of willow meeting leather brings a cheer Then when the ball's pitched short, a subtle flick Shall bring four more! The bound'ry swiftly cleared In graceful flight. But thou art just a dream O noble dream! To make me ever yearn For cover drives borne from the spinning seam And hair as white as hats which stop sun's burn But Test match scores shall never run this way Now glory's over. English sport is gay
Re: a comment on Molecules of Paint by Dovina	Stephen Robins 213.146.148.199	22-Jan-07/3:02 AM
Dovina, I have never seen you so effected, sorry, affected. You have sucked the words out of his sheath like a thirsty ladyboy and positively turned it into a beam of smugness to shower upon the countenances of other rankers. "Look" you wail, "somebody has said something positive on this website about one of my poems, no any poem, and it wasn't Ranger".
Re: a comment on Wreck of the Poor Anchor by Dovina	-=Dark_Angel=-, P.I. 63.212.164.24	21-Jan-07/3:07 PM
I was amused to learn the other day that women have better peripheral vision than men. The more I think about it, the more it makes sense. Women have always lacked the capacity for intense focus, yet their multi-tasking skills (ironing, hoovering, nattering, watching TV) are second to none. Peripheral vision is an important part of effective multi-tasking; the ability to spot a discarded badmington racket from a hundred yards in poor visibility is not.
Re: a comment on Wreck of the Poor Anchor by Dovina	Dovina 75.51.248.14	21-Jan-07/2:48 PM
Wow, you take this as weeping? There is no communicating with you!
Re: a comment on Wreck of the Poor Anchor by Dovina	-=Dark_Angel=-, P.I. 63.212.164.24	21-Jan-07/2:46 PM
Oh, I see. NOW you weep. You fail so badly even your failure has failed.
Re: a comment on Molecules of Paint by Dovina	Dovina 75.51.248.14	21-Jan-07/2:39 PM
I could argue that "each minute leaf, a spec of color" portends the idea expressed later in the peom about a leaf's vein pattern as blueprint of the tree. Would you believe me, or say it's late covering? "Resignedly" is right - good call. I don't suppose you'd buy that "resignly" sounds better? You're better at how things sound, so maybe you'd tell me what "crimson/Artistes" lacks.
Re: a comment on Wreck of the Poor Anchor by Dovina	Dovina 75.51.248.14	21-Jan-07/2:26 PM
Irrelevant or guff comment does not irritate me; I thought I had said that clearly. Not clearly enough, it seems. And to say it more clearly would only sound more snooty. Carry on with the guff, please; call me names; who really cares? You fail, not me.
Re: a comment on Wreck of the Poor Anchor by Dovina	-=Dark_Angel=-, P.I. 63.212.164.24	21-Jan-07/9:19 AM
What? You say how outrageous it is to interpret your comment as a sign of irritation at irrelevant commentary, then you jabber on about how irritating irrelevant commentary is. "Ranger at least addressed the poem"! Do I think you're actually in a state of irritation when you see a guff comment? No! You're secretly pleased because it gives you a chance to show how mature you are. You feel you have a RIGHT to be irritated, and cannot help but exercise it. There is absolutely no thought behind any of your responses -- you may as well be on auto-pilot. Snooty, empty-headed girl auto-pilot. Yet again you fail.