You know what's worse than th insincere rhetoric of equality? This poeme.
[_] AABB rhyming scheme
[_] About romantic love
[_] About poetry-writing
[_] About suicide or self-mutilation
[_] Arbitrary indentation
[_] Arbitrary line breaks
[_] Autobiographical but in the third person
[X] Clerical errors
[X] Cliched imagery (staring out of window, pits of despair)
[_] Cliched rhymes (love/above etc.)
[X] Devoid of alliteration or any such linguistic embellishments
[X] Devoid of rhyme
[_] Devoid of simile, reification or any such literary devices
[_] Devoid of wond'rous or fantastical imagery
[_] Drug references
[_] Elves, unicorns, etc.
[_] Exclamation points used to mark 'the funny bits'
[_] Insipidly whimsical or zany
[_] Leaving rant
[X] Lower case only
[X] Melodramatic
[_] Naively religious or superstitious
[X] Obsessed with femininity
[_] Overabundance of ellipses
[_] Overuse of 'depression' words (putrid, wretched, darkness, etc)
[_] Pointedly unanswered questions
[_] Protagonist has a smug name
[X] Rage against the machine
[_] References to the author's 'social life'
[_] Repetition of a single word or phrase to the point of nausea
[X] Sanctimoniously moral
[_] Sentimental
[_] Self-pity
[_] Thesaurophilia
[_] Use of internet shorthand or emoticons
[_] Vicarious wish fulfilment
Bonus comment: Kittens do not knead their mothers.
-9-
[_] AABB rhyming scheme
[_] About romantic love
[_] About poetry-writing
[_] About suicide or self-mutilation
[_] Arbitrary indentation
[_] Arbitrary line breaks
[_] Autobiographical but in the third person
[X] Clerical errors
[X] Cliched imagery (staring out of window, pits of despair)
[_] Cliched rhymes (love/above etc.)
[X] Devoid of alliteration or any such linguistic embellishments
[X] Devoid of rhyme
[_] Devoid of simile, reification or any such literary devices
[_] Devoid of wond'rous or fantastical imagery
[_] Drug references
[_] Elves, unicorns, etc.
[_] Exclamation points used to mark 'the funny bits'
[_] Insipidly whimsical or zany
[_] Leaving rant
[X] Lower case only
[X] Melodramatic
[_] Naively religious or superstitious
[X] Obsessed with femininity
[_] Overabundance of ellipses
[_] Overuse of 'depression' words (putrid, wretched, darkness, etc)
[_] Pointedly unanswered questions
[_] Protagonist has a smug name
[X] Rage against the machine
[_] References to the author's 'social life'
[_] Repetition of a single word or phrase to the point of nausea
[X] Sanctimoniously moral
[_] Sentimental
[_] Self-pity
[_] Thesaurophilia
[_] Use of internet shorthand or emoticons
[_] Vicarious wish fulfilment
Bonus comment: Kittens do not knead their mothers.
-9-
replying on To Be Happy by embersandenvelopes
25 Apr 2004, 3:55 PM
You haven't explained anything. The part of the sentence that doesn't make any sense is how a memory could "reside" at someone's distate. Even writing those words makes me feel soiled.
on Words that the Earth has to say… by nothingtoanyone
24 Apr 2004, 5:06 AM
I bet you wish you were an elf. Yeah, that would be so cool, wouldn't it, to be an elf? But what if everyone else was an elf too? No, that wouldn't be as good. God, you're pathetic.
replying on Radiation Reflections by sarah
24 Apr 2004, 12:51 AM
bow'ls
replying on Dear M Foucault, or, How I knew our relationship was doomed by zodiac
23 Apr 2004, 2:52 PM
:-(
replying on Radiation Reflections by sarah
23 Apr 2004, 1:55 PM
Don't feel too despondent; radiation is a tricky subject to write about because so many people find it funny. I know this is an emotional piece for you, and I respect that, but you might consider using abortion as a metaphor for chemotherapy in future. Good poeme, though -7-
replying on Dear M Foucault, or, How I knew our relationship was doomed by zodiac
23 Apr 2004, 12:35 PM
GOOGLE SEARCH RESULTS
"The truth of a proposition is inversely proportional to the number of idiots who believe it" = nil
TOTAL: nil
Once again you fail.
"The truth of a proposition is inversely proportional to the number of idiots who believe it" = nil
TOTAL: nil
Once again you fail.
replying on Dear M Foucault, or, How I knew our relationship was doomed by zodiac
23 Apr 2004, 12:27 PM
The truth of a proposition is inversely proportional to the number of idiots who believe it.
replying on Dear M Foucault, or, How I knew our relationship was doomed by zodiac
23 Apr 2004, 7:26 AM
"Life is just a game" is the world's stupidest platitude. Life is not a game. Life is a thing in which games take place. It's not even an understandable confusion; the features of 'games' are almost entirely distinct from the features of 'life'.
Also, what is this speech about wouldn't it be ace to be a philosopher? I never said there was anything wrong with professional philosophers. Indeede, I implied that it was OK to feel proud about studing Wittgenstein if you were being paid for it. Nice one!!
Also, what is this speech about wouldn't it be ace to be a philosopher? I never said there was anything wrong with professional philosophers. Indeede, I implied that it was OK to feel proud about studing Wittgenstein if you were being paid for it. Nice one!!
replying on Dear M Foucault, or, How I knew our relationship was doomed by zodiac
23 Apr 2004, 6:33 AM
First, Hume would win Wittgenstein any day of the week. Second, for you to go around trumping out miniature gushing guffs of adulation for Wittgenstein is as bulgingly ignorant as it is appallingly pretentious. Wittgenstein was a crazed loner whose only achievement, which was realising that nearly all questions in philosophy are steaming cornucopiae of bow'ls, was continually nullified by his inexplicable continuing engagement in philosophy.
Furthermore, to think about Wittgenstein's work is to expend hideous amounts of mental effort on a completely useless task. Anyone who is somehow proud of having tried to understand Wittgenstein is either being paid for it, or is so acutely aware of the total waste of time their life has been that they have to tell themselves it was incredibly fulfilling. Studying him as a requirement for a class is no excuse whatsoever.
Furthermore, to think about Wittgenstein's work is to expend hideous amounts of mental effort on a completely useless task. Anyone who is somehow proud of having tried to understand Wittgenstein is either being paid for it, or is so acutely aware of the total waste of time their life has been that they have to tell themselves it was incredibly fulfilling. Studying him as a requirement for a class is no excuse whatsoever.
on Radiation Reflections by sarah
23 Apr 2004, 5:19 AM
I can accept closure.
But not indecent exposure.
But not indecent exposure.
replying on Dear M Foucault, or, How I knew our relationship was doomed by zodiac
23 Apr 2004, 2:15 AM
There are a number of philosophers who have never made any decent arguments and are famous only because their theories were so ridiculous and obviously wrong that everyone after them had a jolly good time explaining why. Here are the top three:
1. John R. Searle
2. Michel Foucault
3. Bishop Berkeley
1. John R. Searle
2. Michel Foucault
3. Bishop Berkeley
replying on Dear M Foucault, or, How I knew our relationship was doomed by zodiac
23 Apr 2004, 2:07 AM
He also says somewhere else that people didn't exist until the concept was invented after the end of serfdom. He seems unable to perceive the difference between the concept of people existing, and people (the things we currently denote with the term "people") existing. He is a prime bollock.
Well you can, but it makes you a tool.