| Re: a comment on Heaven Out Here by wilco |
3-Jun-04/7:36 PM |
38 "When a man or woman has white spots on the skin, 39 the priest is to examine them, and if the spots are dull white, it is a harmless rash that has broken out on the skin; that person is clean.
40 "When a man has lost his hair and is bald, he is clean. 41 If he has lost his hair from the front of his scalp and has a bald forehead, he is clean. 42 But if he has a reddish-white sore on his bald head or forehead, it is an infectious disease breaking out on his head or forehead. 43 The priest is to examine him, and if the swollen sore on his head or forehead is reddish-white like an infectious skin disease, 44 the man is diseased and is unclean. The priest shall pronounce him unclean because of the sore on his head.
45 "The person with such an infectious disease must wear torn clothes, let his hair be unkempt, [4] cover the lower part of his face and cry out, 'Unclean! Unclean!' 46 As long as he has the infection he remains unclean. He must live alone; he must live outside the camp.
- Leviticus 13
|
|
|
 |
| Re: a comment on Heaven Out Here by wilco |
3-Jun-04/7:35 PM |
|
29 "If a man or woman has a sore on the head or on the chin, 30 the priest is to examine the sore, and if it appears to be more than skin deep and the hair in it is yellow and thin, the priest shall pronounce that person unclean; it is an itch, an infectious disease of the head or chin. 31 But if, when the priest examines this kind of sore, it does not seem to be more than skin deep and there is no black hair in it, then the priest is to put the infected person in isolation for seven days. 32 On the seventh day the priest is to examine the sore, and if the itch has not spread and there is no yellow hair in it and it does not appear to be more than skin deep, 33 he must be shaved except for the diseased area, and the priest is to keep him in isolation another seven days. 34 On the seventh day the priest is to examine the itch, and if it has not spread in the skin and appears to be no more than skin deep, the priest shall pronounce him clean. He must wash his clothes, and he will be clean. 35 But if the itch does spread in the skin after he is pronounced clean, 36 the priest is to examine him, and if the itch has spread in the skin, the priest does not need to look for yellow hair; the person is unclean. 37 If, however, in his judgment it is unchanged and black hair has grown in it, the itch is healed. He is clean, and the priest shall pronounce him clean.
|
|
|
|
| Re: a comment on Heaven Out Here by wilco |
3-Jun-04/7:35 PM |
|
24 "When someone has a burn on his skin and a reddish-white or white spot appears in the raw flesh of the burn, 25 the priest is to examine the spot, and if the hair in it has turned white, and it appears to be more than skin deep, it is an infectious disease that has broken out in the burn. The priest shall pronounce him unclean; it is an infectious skin disease. 26 But if the priest examines it and there is no white hair in the spot and if it is not more than skin deep and has faded, then the priest is to put him in isolation for seven days. 27 On the seventh day the priest is to examine him, and if it is spreading in the skin, the priest shall pronounce him unclean; it is an infectious skin disease. 28 If, however, the spot is unchanged and has not spread in the skin but has faded, it is a swelling from the burn, and the priest shall pronounce him clean; it is only a scar from the burn.
|
|
|
|
| Re: a comment on Heaven Out Here by wilco |
3-Jun-04/7:35 PM |
12 "If the disease breaks out all over his skin and, so far as the priest can see, it covers all the skin of the infected person from head to foot, 13 the priest is to examine him, and if the disease has covered his whole body, he shall pronounce that person clean. Since it has all turned white, he is clean. 14 But whenever raw flesh appears on him, he will be unclean. 15 When the priest sees the raw flesh, he shall pronounce him unclean. The raw flesh is unclean; he has an infectious disease. 16 Should the raw flesh change and turn white, he must go to the priest. 17 The priest is to examine him, and if the sores have turned white, the priest shall pronounce the infected person clean; then he will be clean.
18 "When someone has a boil on his skin and it heals, 19 and in the place where the boil was, a white swelling or reddish-white spot appears, he must present himself to the priest. 20 The priest is to examine it, and if it appears to be more than skin deep and the hair in it has turned white, the priest shall pronounce him unclean. It is an infectious skin disease that has broken out where the boil was. 21 But if, when the priest examines it, there is no white hair in it and it is not more than skin deep and has faded, then the priest is to put him in isolation for seven days. 22 If it is spreading in the skin, the priest shall pronounce him unclean; it is infectious. 23 But if the spot is unchanged and has not spread, it is only a scar from the boil, and the priest shall pronounce him clean.
|
|
|
|
| Re: a comment on Heaven Out Here by wilco |
3-Jun-04/7:34 PM |
|
9 "When anyone has an infectious skin disease, he must be brought to the priest. 10 The priest is to examine him, and if there is a white swelling in the skin that has turned the hair white and if there is raw flesh in the swelling, 11 it is a chronic skin disease and the priest shall pronounce him unclean. He is not to put him in isolation, because he is already unclean.
|
|
|
|
| Re: a comment on Heaven Out Here by wilco |
3-Jun-04/7:32 PM |
|
1 The LORD said to Moses and Aaron, 2 "When anyone has a swelling or a rash or a bright spot on his skin that may become an infectious skin disease, he must be brought to Aaron the priest or to one of his sons who is a priest. 3 The priest is to examine the sore on his skin, and if the hair in the sore has turned white and the sore appears to be more than skin deep, it is an infectious skin disease. When the priest examines him, he shall pronounce him ceremonially unclean. 4 If the spot on his skin is white but does not appear to be more than skin deep and the hair in it has not turned white, the priest is to put the infected person in isolation for seven days. 5 On the seventh day the priest is to examine him, and if he sees that the sore is unchanged and has not spread in the skin, he is to keep him in isolation another seven days. 6 On the seventh day the priest is to examine him again, and if the sore has faded and has not spread in the skin, the priest shall pronounce him clean; it is only a rash. The man must wash his clothes, and he will be clean. 7 But if the rash does spread in his skin after he has shown himself to the priest to be pronounced clean, he must appear before the priest again. 8 The priest is to examine him, and if the rash has spread in the skin, he shall pronounce him unclean; it is an infectious disease.
|
|
|
|
| Re: a comment on Heaven Out Here by wilco |
3-Jun-04/7:21 PM |
|
What a bunch of crap. If this world was only meant to be a test, why would it be so colorful and full of interesting things? Why wouldn't it just be like, say, Tron?
|
|
|
|
| Re: a comment on Heaven Out Here by wilco |
3-Jun-04/3:51 PM |
|
Proofread is one word, homesketch.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Their Song of Peace or Pain by nothingtoanyone |
3-Jun-04/5:13 AM |
re: "Monotonous is King and Sorrow is his Queen."
Jesus, man! Those aren't even the same species! Just imagine all the deformed forms they would give birth to! Adjenouns! Prepoverbs! Adjunctions!!!1!
|
|
|
|
| Re: a comment on Heroes of the Rodeo by Amber |
3-Jun-04/5:07 AM |
|
|
|
| Re: a comment on The Folded Ways Your Eyes Cave by horus8 |
2-Jun-04/4:54 PM |
|
|
|
| Re: a comment on Jimmy and Chichi Choo (Sub-Dylan Bullshit Blues) by the codeine kid |
2-Jun-04/4:00 PM |
For one thing: Yes, I do spend a lot of my time on this site pointing out the massive failings in people's poems and/or personalities. If you'd actually read your (new! pocket-sized!) Official Poemranker Rulebook instead of merely drawing crayon mustaches on all the handy illustrations, you'd know that pointing out a poem's and/or user's failings is not only allowed on this site but encouraged. If certain of my comments are not exactly "on topic," well, I've read and voted honestly on close to three thousand poems on this site and am more than entitled to it. What've you got, honky?
For another thing: Kings are hardly ever elected, especially by "self." To name oneself king of something is not the same as electing oneself.
For yet another thing: If I were a king of the poetry board, I would likely not consider you much of a challenge. You've hardly even put anyone down. And we get a dozen of you in and out of here every week. You'll be gone by the weekend, while I've been a user for six months now. That's nearly seven months in poemranker years.
And one other thing: horus and I aren't a crew. In fact, if I ever see that crazy nigger on my turf I'll cap his ass.
I lied, here's another thing: You might be surprised to find that my poems are all sensitive ruminations on love and doubt, particularly this one:
http://www.poemranker.com/poem-details.jsp?id=94210
|
|
|
|
| Re: a comment on The Angel and The Ass by pain killer |
2-Jun-04/3:45 PM |
Shi', cracker, I don' give a fuck about horus.
And he's not a "self-elected intimidator", we all elected him. We also voted him prettiest poemranker user and best original song about cripples. It was a big to-do a while back.
|
|
|
|
| Re: a comment on The Folded Ways Your Eyes Cave by horus8 |
2-Jun-04/3:42 PM |
We just broke up yesterday because I'm moving to the Middle East in a month. When I get back, I'll still be under 30. I'll give you a call.
I sang the Raleigh track and co-mixed.
|
|
|
|
| Re: a comment on The Folded Ways Your Eyes Cave by horus8 |
2-Jun-04/2:21 PM |
|
It's a villanelle, you dimwit.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Jimmy and Chichi Choo (Sub-Dylan Bullshit Blues) by the codeine kid |
2-Jun-04/2:14 PM |
|
You've sure captured Dylan's talent for easy rhymes and bullshit "metaphorical" nonsense.
|
|
|
|
| Re: a comment on The Angel and The Ass by pain killer |
2-Jun-04/2:10 PM |
Maybe it's because he doesn't give a rat's ass about insulting you properly.
I bet you a million dollars you won't read his poetry.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Piccadilly to Baker Street by Caducus |
2-Jun-04/4:33 AM |
|
This poem is practically unfinishable. Sure, you have about triple the average poemranker use-vocabulary, but this is all compound main and subordinate clauses jammed together higgledy-piggledy. It needs about ten more periods, and it needs to lose that awful "Present participling through something, I present indicative myself" sentence construction - and any clauses that begin with "As" as well. I'm wondering, have you tried to read this out loud? And I don't think "From pages of Larkin I pondered On the bleakness" is a valid way of saying that.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Sex Mob by nothingtoanyone |
1-Jun-04/8:15 AM |
|
|
|
| Re: a comment on flying into the storm by herbgirlofbirkenau |
1-Jun-04/4:26 AM |
"In 1992, desperate to display its pro-business credentials, Labour launched the 'prawn cocktail offensive' to win hearts and minds in the City.
That old Tory warhorse Michael Heseltine realised it was doomed to failure.
'All those prawn cocktails for nothing,' he sneered. 'Never have so many crustaceans died in vain.'"
-The Wolverhampton Express & Star
|
|
|
|
