Melodramatic? Why not. But your last comment makes about as much sense to me as fishing with a hand grenade. P.S. You already know my age D.A. its yours no one is quite sure about.

You swallow everything I give you with an eager look and a proud telling-off when you've digested it.

yes. people do understand what daniella says. because she makes sense. invest a half second of thought, and you might understand, too.

P.S. If I was in checkmate in a game of words I'd have to admit defeat or a third party would have to decare me defeated. Seeing as that hasn't happened(cause much as it may be hard for you to belive) I haven't been defeated. "People don't take off for typos as much as you'd think" when equated with mathmatics versus "spelling isn't everything". Thats like equating Mcdonalds with Burgar King. They are almost one another's shadow. Same thing just a slightly different favor.

D.A. For you the world is flat and only the complexities of your own ignorance coupled with what you(meaning you D.A. and you alone) believe to be the truths of reality. I know this poem hits on cliche but the fact that it moves me despite its typos is why I like it. Relax. Stop being anal and examining everything with a microscope.

P.S. For extra credit, rearrange the words in the following string to mean `possibly`: `necessarily not not`

Now to address your points about this being an decent poem. It is not. It is a terrible work through and through, with nothing original, well-put, imaginative, evocative, clever, pleasant-sounding or even rhyming in it. And that's just for its merit as a bearable string of ideas, let alone its conformity to the definition of 'poem'. The lexicographical incompetence of the author is merely the icing on the cake. P.S. Although "lexicographical" means "pertaining to writing or compiling a dictionary", not "pertaining to spelling and grammar", I used it because the dangerously self-referential thought process necessarily undergone to formulate the definition is so dangerous that we have to use it every time we can so the definition is not lost.

4. The reference of "you" in "as much as you'd think" isn't fixed, if it means "the average person who has no special knowledge about how often people take off for typos". The amount the average person would think will vary over time. The degree to which spelling is everything will also vary over time, since the moral importance of spelling will change (e.g. if aliens who punish bad spelling take over the world and we have to protect our families with the power to spell properly), but clearly not coincidentally with the average person's opinion of spelling (people might come to think spelling is everything because it saves their lives, or they might come to think spelling is worthless and detestable, because they hate the spelling-loving aliens so much). Then does "you" mean something else? There don't seem any plausible alternatives. If you meant "as much as I, thepinkbunnyofdoom, would think", then there would be no point in mentioning it, because, since I know nothing about how often you think people take off for typos, you can't convince me that it's an overestimate. If you meant "you, -=Dark_Angel=-", that would be absurd. Let's call however much *I* would think 'X'. Now obviously I believe in the proposition "'People take off X amount", and nothing could possibly change that, since even if you convinced me that people take off hardly at all, then the value of X - what I believe the amount is - would change to be "hardly at all", and it would still be true to say "People take off X amount", i.e. "People take off hardly at all". But, even though I necessarily believe in "People take off X amount", what you're trying to convince me of is "People *don't* take off X amount", which is the negation of what I necessarily believe. So the only way you could possibly convince me is if I did an impossible thing (disbelieve what I necessarily believe). Therefore for you to convince me is only possible if it's impossible, which is to say it's impossible, and therefore possible, and therefore impossible. In other words, impossible. In other words, possible. In other words... IMPOSSIBLE. QED motherfucker. In other words, check motherfucking mate. In other words, better motherfucking luck next time, motherfucker. 5. "Not as much as you'd think" doesn't even have any of the same words in them as "People take off for typos everywhere". It's obvious who the person who is right is and who the one who is the one who is wrong is is. You! And me! In that god damn order! WHICH MEANS YOU'RE WRONG. TALK ABOUT GUTTED TO THE MOTHERFUCKING MAX DUDE RADICAL WIIIIIIIPEOUTTT DUDUDUDUDUDUDUDUDUDUDUDUDUDU Your dad, -=Dark_Angel=-

Oh! You were trying to get that across, huh? Yeah? Great! Were you? Really? Oh yeah? Tough guy, huh! Oh, yeah, sure. Come on man. Then how come you said "people don't take off for typos as much as you'd think"? Is that the same as "spelling isn't everything"? No! It isn't! I don't think you'll find it is! I've checked! It's not the same!!!!11111 Let's look at a point-by-point rundown of exactly why "spelling isn't everything" isn't the same as "people don't take off for typos as much as you'd think". 1. It could be that spelling wasn't everything, but that people still took off for typos all the time, if, for the sake of example, everyone took a drug that made them take off for everything. 2. It could be that spelling *was* everything, but that people didn't take off for typos, if, for example, people suddenly all took drugs that made them mild-mannered. 3. "Spelling isn't everything" is a statement about values. Its truth depends on moral facts. "People don't take off for typos as much as you'd think" is a statement about people. Its truth depends on facts that don't need to be (and probably aren't) moral.

What I was trying to get across is that spelling isn't everything! Sure its nice but If you can spell excellently but can't convey an image then your poem is going to suck. On the other hand if you can paint that image with your words for the reader to see but can't spell worth a damn your not losing out as much. Yes I am still talking about this poem, The image she lays out is one that is easy to imagine. Plus you can see her feelings of joy and hope for the future. Typos or not its a lovely piece.