replying on Desire by Chasz Misleading
10 Jun 2004, 3:53 AM
You are such a whore, who cares if you'd get paid for it.
replying on With Reckless Abandon by MacFrantic
9 Jun 2004, 3:28 PM
Having taken time to untangle all the adjectives she was probably pissed off to realise that the poeme was complete gibberish.
on New lover confirms poetic divorce by fevriere
9 Jun 2004, 3:20 PM
This haiku seems to suggest in happier times you could rhyme blue eyes with sea.
on Wedding Day by Caducus
9 Jun 2004, 3:18 PM
It is not enough to call the wind arrogant, its actions should portray such, then there would be no need for the word.
Same goes for 'fragrant' (what smell is fragrant), 'desperate' 'hopeless' and 'exuding wry misery'.
I am growing fond of the polite 'english' voice in poetry. Fallen portico/ ironed silk give the poem a charm certainly.
Same goes for 'fragrant' (what smell is fragrant), 'desperate' 'hopeless' and 'exuding wry misery'.
I am growing fond of the polite 'english' voice in poetry. Fallen portico/ ironed silk give the poem a charm certainly.
on USS Pride by DR Limerick
7 Jun 2004, 2:38 PM
Always use multiple exclamation marks, that way the words don't have to do the work. Ace idea
on LOVE-ABOVE LISTE by Everyone
18 May 2004, 1:37 PM
You have perfected the art of appearing both irreverent and smug. Well done.
on Swan on Willow Lake by Caducus
17 May 2004, 11:22 AM
I think this is how a haiku should be written. The first image and then a different image (the blackbirds) linked to the first.
Would leave out jealous though. Haikus are about imagery more than most other forms. Image without need for explanation.
Would leave out jealous though. Haikus are about imagery more than most other forms. Image without need for explanation.
on and the world evolves by peaceseeker
17 May 2004, 11:19 AM
Not so much to grab onto, a lot of abstracts. Like how it begins.
on At the door by fufuberry
15 May 2004, 6:03 AM
believe the packed bags, they are a fair hint.
on Washing-up Hands and Disgruntled Underarms by fevriere
15 May 2004, 6:02 AM
very good, nice use of language, I think that is important.
Not sure about 'milky' as a sentence in its own right. Sounds like some mad persons catchphrase.
Not sure about 'milky' as a sentence in its own right. Sounds like some mad persons catchphrase.
on ...So We Stayed In The Water by Fear of Garbage
11 May 2004, 11:56 AM
It was all going swimmingly until the end of the first verse, then it became a bit incoherent.
N.B. 'The pool has' not the pool's possessive.
N.B. 'The pool has' not the pool's possessive.
on Bodies Bore Like I Do Too by fevriere
11 May 2004, 7:06 AM
Sex is a butterfly but a butterfly does not buzz
and a buzz does not flow
nor does it flood.
and a buzz does not flow
nor does it flood.
on collars i have worn--exhibit 3 by Patsy
11 May 2004, 5:40 AM
Quite like it, although it does seem to hanker after a garden that is in a pond!
on setting the record straight on April by poetandknowit
9 May 2004, 3:47 AM
Why did babbit11 only give you an -8-. If I was babbit11 I would give Po etandknowit a -10- every time.
replying on The Influence of Anxiety by Nicholas Jones
7 May 2004, 12:35 PM
Is anything poetry then as long as it has line break because I have noticed something. J.K. Rowling writes two pages of prose a day. She should just put line breaks in and a couple of sentences would do.
replying on deviant conveniences by J.B. Manning
6 May 2004, 11:18 AM
'I'm not really sure what you mean by "using language to match the physical"'
What I mean is for something happens at the information processing level, the best we can do to describe it is to invent terms such as neurotransmitter and firing (language).
Something happens in the brain, we call it firing. But the modes of 'event' and 'language describing event' are different. It is a metaphysical gap (something like that).
If there was a way to put 'event' down on paper. Both science and poetry, which both make representations of the world would be obsolete.
What I mean is for something happens at the information processing level, the best we can do to describe it is to invent terms such as neurotransmitter and firing (language).
Something happens in the brain, we call it firing. But the modes of 'event' and 'language describing event' are different. It is a metaphysical gap (something like that).
If there was a way to put 'event' down on paper. Both science and poetry, which both make representations of the world would be obsolete.
replying on deviant conveniences by J.B. Manning
6 May 2004, 1:05 AM
My question was is should verification be relevant to soul-believers. And bearing in mind verification of certain hypotheses comes after making assumptions that are not verified, in what sense does verification differ from what writers/ philosophers may speak of as internal consistency i.e. that an idea 'tracks'.
And stop being so rude, did madam leave the TV remote out of your reach or something.
And stop being so rude, did madam leave the TV remote out of your reach or something.
replying on deviant conveniences by J.B. Manning
5 May 2004, 2:42 PM
If reading further was likely to lead me to an end, we would all own the book and would probably read the last page first.
replying on deviant conveniences by J.B. Manning
5 May 2004, 2:40 PM
Its hardly rocket science:
1) the relevance of verifiability is that it makes a comment on the verifiability of things, nothing more.
to suggest that verifiability has relevance on the thing itself is an article of belief.
2) There is no base unit in science, no truth. Take the smallest particle in the universe, every time one takes a more detailed look the picture becomes more blurred. There is never a point at which the smallest particle changes from something to nothing. The idea of a particle as infinitely small.
1) the relevance of verifiability is that it makes a comment on the verifiability of things, nothing more.
to suggest that verifiability has relevance on the thing itself is an article of belief.
2) There is no base unit in science, no truth. Take the smallest particle in the universe, every time one takes a more detailed look the picture becomes more blurred. There is never a point at which the smallest particle changes from something to nothing. The idea of a particle as infinitely small.
The first quote is the voice of tradition/ scripture.
The second quote (final line)is the other people in the orchard arguing from the tradition/ scripture of the first quote.