Re: a comment on Recycled Stardust by Quarton	6-Jul-04/1:10 PM
Yes, the bit from -=Dark_Angel=-,P.I.'s comment which you quoted is perfectly specific. It leaves no room for any confusion about either what kind of people -=Dark_Angel=-,P.I. likes to help or how he likes to help them. Anyone even halfway literate knows -=Dark_Angel=-,P.I. likes to "help people who are colossal boobs by telling them they're colossal boobs". For that matter, so do I. You are a colossal boob. Three days into this conversation, you still have no idea what's the difference between somebody's perception of reality and reality itself. You're still talking about how some "reality may be once again proven to be bogus", which is not only grammar-rape but STILL TOTALLY WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!! And instead of even TRYING to get it, you've tossed a bunch of nasty names around here, calling -=Dark_Angel=-,P.I. and I and a lot of other people "simpletons", "clothes-minded", and "hopeless crippled introverts", and generally made a HUGE FLOUNDERING BOOB out of yourself. But let me tell you something: I least we can grasp the basic concept of most English words (especially science-words such as "reality") having specific and more-or-less inviolable meanings, while you still fancy them some kind of unwieldy rank meat-hat signifying 'winner' with every burbling sweet-sick exhalation.
Re: a comment on Recycled Stardust by Quarton	6-Jul-04/8:36 AM
"You give no specifics" is the buncombe dodge of an inveterate guffer. Look back at the comments on this page. Now, have you at any point said anything more specific than "What is seen as reality varies but you are right in that reality is a constant" - which, incidentally, is not what ANY OF US have been talking about here, yourself included? Have you given any reason or proof for ANY OF YOUR ASSERTIONS AT ALL???!?! Yet, you've been soundly flogged by specifics all over your page, not the least of which is the perfectly specific assertion that -=Dark_Angel=-, P.I. likes to "help people who are colossal boobs by telling them they're colossal boobs," - for which NO FURTHER JUSTIFICATION IS NEEDED. PS-'Upon reading your comment, X, I could only shake my head in disbelief and utterly fail to respond to your points,' is the bullshit floundering of a desperate sinking guff. PPS-You misspelled apropos.
Re: Forbidden by Chasz Misleading	5-Jul-04/9:22 PM
If you think success is typical, you should take a look at the last 13,235 poems posted on poemranker.
Re: a comment on Recycled Stardust by Quarton	5-Jul-04/9:09 PM
But if you say that "there is a fixed reality", then you must agree that it's possible for some people's ideas of reality to be the right ones, while some other people's ideas of reality (ie, that the earth is flat or there's no such thing as gravity,) are probably wrong. In saying that it's cool for everybody to have different reality concepts, you're really just saying it's okay for many people - most people, probably - to be dead wrong about everything. Well, sure it's okay - but who would want to be in the dead-wrong group???!?!
Re: a comment on Rainbow by TwilightDawned	5-Jul-04/6:08 PM
That is not an appropriate answer.
Re: a comment on Rainbow by TwilightDawned	5-Jul-04/2:53 PM
What does "inaccurate of language" mean?
Re: a comment on Translation by Dovina	5-Jul-04/12:39 PM
Hmmm. Could it be that neither of you speaks the other's language very well???!?!? YES! The problem isn't that the words don't exist in English to capture what she'd said in Spanish, or anything of the sort; it's just that she doesn't know them, and you don't know Spanish well enough to do it, either. PS-I've lived months in Spanish-speaking countries. Most of the time they're saying things like, 'Hey, Rosalita, where'd you put the habaneros?' and 'Listen, girl, why don't you suck my giant rat!' and all the tourists are like, 'Oooh! It's the language of romance!!!!!'
Re: a comment on Recycled Stardust by Quarton	5-Jul-04/12:31 PM
Having only accomplished college-freshman physics and chemistry, and that ages ago, I have very little idea about gravitons, etc. I do, however, propose that if scientists build a machine to prove that gravitons exist, THEY WILL NOT BE CHANGING REALITY. They will simply be exposing some part of reality which has ALWAYS BEEN THERE. Suppose, to take it a step further, scientists in this decade 'prove' that gravitons exist and scientists in the next decade disprove them. How many times would you say reality has changed? You're wrong. IT HASN'T CHANGED AT ALL. Please, please, say you understand this now. Where you've buttocksed yourself beyond recognition is on the semantics of it. The word reality ONLY MEANS things which are real, which have existence. We know this because we made it up to mean that, just as if I invented a word - say 'Verschnugle' - to mean 'things which are red'. To say some parts of reality are real and some parts aren't, or that 'reality' changes depending on who's looking at it, is at best merely uninformed to the max, and at worst the most hideous sort of stoned undergraduate late-night guff-talking, something along the lines of, 'Hey, maybe what I think is brown is, like, some other color for you, maaaannnnn. Like orange... Yeaaahhh, dewd! I'm blowing my own miiinnnd!!!'
Re: a comment on Paradelle of Progress by Dovina	5-Jul-04/10:14 AM
After reading this explanation on comments-recent, I expected this poem to be a lot more impressive than it actually is.
Re: a comment on Translation by Dovina	5-Jul-04/10:13 AM
PPS-I knew that 'romantic' wasn't the correct term for language or culture derived from Rome, but you didn't!!!!!
Re: a comment on Translation by Dovina	5-Jul-04/10:11 AM
re: "All languages contain cultural shades of meaning that don't translate well," You think that because you don't understand Spanish very well. Or English, for that matter. Anyways, that's why Spanish sounds deep and meaningful to you. PS-English is largely a romantic language. The words "is", "largely", "romantic", and "language" are all Rome-originated, for example.
Re: Tapestry Years by Quarton	4-Jul-04/9:06 PM
You're a lot better when you're not trying to talk science. Unfortunately, none of the sentences in this poem are really sentences.
Re: Order My Book, And $4.00 Will Go To Killing A Pop Star by <{Baba^Yaga}>	4-Jul-04/9:01 PM
Basia, Seals from Seals and Crofts, or the White Stripes. My check's in the mail. Don't let me down again.
Re: a comment on Recycled Stardust by Quarton	4-Jul-04/11:54 AM
Your spelling of 'self-righteous' is bogus and self-righteous. And you clearly haven't bothered very much reading my 'arguments' or you would have seen that I was speaking purely scientifically and no offense intended. What I meant was, do you believe the notion we call 'gravity' is something personal and variable (eg, you might not, in fact, fall when you walk off a cliff), or is it part of a useful model for the universe which may be applied pretty consistently to almost all imaginable situations (eg, you probably will fall, like most things do)?
Re: a comment on Recycled Stardust by Quarton	3-Jul-04/6:33 PM
PS-Speaking purely scientifically and honestly no offense intended, would you mind very much walking off a cliff? What I mean is, do you believe that the concept of 'gravity', which forms part of the basis for most people's notions of 'reality', is really real and can be applied in a predictable fashion to almost anything; or would you say it's "that which we are taught with little or no original thought" and a "self-serving 'truth'" which is "unique" and "varies with each individual"?
Re: a comment on Recycled Stardust by Quarton	3-Jul-04/6:25 PM
Oh dear. Are you about to pop? Have you, in fact, already popped. Now dig this beat, homeslyce: The Ebert analogy is yours, not mine, from your comment of 2-Jul-04/8:35 PM. And it's a buggyload of crap, for the reasons I've given you twice already. Other than that, you've simply repeated for the tenth time that "reality is personal, variable, and unique" like some fucking mantra, while not even bothering to consider my points and otherwise blundering all over this site with the (frankly absurd) suggestion that I am somehow being closed-minded while you're not. Get over yourself, cowboy. Yes, conceptions of reality are changing practically daily, but this business about pioneers "challenging mundane and fixed realities" is a mountain of guff and you know it. Pioneers don't create new, say, territories, you dimwit, or principles, or anything else. They just find ones that are ALREADY THERE. Anybody knows that. Sometimes they're wrong, and most of the time what they discover is incomplete or subject to later questioning and revision. Anybody knows that! That's why no one bothers talking about 'reality' with any sort of preachy pulpity certainty but inveterate guffers and poets.
Re: a comment on Recycled Stardust by Quarton	3-Jul-04/5:42 AM
Like, "You're trying to make sense"?
Re: a comment on Recycled Stardust by Quarton	3-Jul-04/5:29 AM
Please read what you've just written. Is that really what you want to say?
Re: a comment on Recycled Stardust by Quarton	3-Jul-04/5:10 AM
I'm afraid you're the one who's wrong. Reality IS what exists in the universe, including many things which humans have only perceived inconsistently or wrongly. Look at it this way: suppose I were a person living a thousand years ago and said the reality of earth was that it is covered by a blue-painted shell about a two hundred feet up. Now, do you think the 'reality' of earth, even a thousand years ago, is what I ignorantly spout on about it (that it's covered with a shell), or that it's covered with several miles of air that refract white sunlight, giving the appearance of an opaque blue surface? Now, suppose modern science is wrong and scientists discover in a few years that earth is really surrounded by banks of tel-o-matics upon which aliens project eye-pleasing blue images. Then has reality changed? No! Not at all!!! Only somebody's admittedly-ignorant idea of 'reality' has changed. The main difference between a scientist and a regular person at that point will be that the scientist will revise his theories and then go on about trying to understand his revised model of the universe, while the regular person will scream bloody murder, sacrifice a half-dozen virgin pullets, and start sucking at his thumb with a maniacal fervor. Then, depending on what sort of undergarment style he prefers as much as anything else, he'll either loudly proclaim that whatever he has always believed without need of proof or verification is now true and'll lord it over everybody else; or he'll claim that the new evidence is flawed, that he doesn't need evidence anyway, and that he's still right in whatever he's always believed. Then they'll start some massive globe-encompassing war with each other using the pure instruments of science for wanton destruction. Tell me, IS THAT WHAT YOU WANT??!?! PS-The rest of your comment is too silly for words, and shows you to be manifestly unqualified to use science-words (or very many other words, for that matter,) in your poems. Leave them alone. They belong to somebody else.
Re: a comment on Recycled Stardust by Quarton	3-Jul-04/4:41 AM
Now look what you've done. You've contradicted yourself right into your own overlarge unblinking eyes. Let's recap, shall we? You've said: 1) Someone [i.e., god'swife] is unqualified to critique your poem because she is a mediocre poet, irrespective of whether or not she's a good poem critic. 2) Someone [i.e., Roger Ebert] is qualified to critique a film despite that he's not even a mediocre filmmaker, because he's a good film critic. Do you think the factor that makes someone a bad critic for you might actually be THAT HE OR SHE HAS TRASHED SOMETHING OF YOURS??!?! YES!!! BONUS: Why don't you go the full monty and say one (or both!) of the following? 1) All people are qualified to write poetry about science, whether they know anything about science or not. 2) Only people who know anything about science are qualified to write poetry about science.