Re: a comment on Reflections of the Living Dead by SomeKindofPoet	23-May-04/8:23 PM
1) If you insist on continuing this conversation, please use a numbered-list format like this one. Without lists, poemranker debates tend to take something like the following form: USER 1: [responds to all User 2's earlier comments in a semi-methodical fashion.] USER 2: [some completely unrelated nonsense.] USER 1: [responds to all User 2's comments in a semi-methodical fashion.] 2) And without numbered lists, how will we know who is winning? 3) I'm sorry you can't write intelligibly. Clearly, you've missed the memo defining language as a community's generally-agreed-upon system of signs used in a generally-agreed-upon order. That, or your colossal illiteracy made it useful only for making paper hats and/or pterodactyls out of. 4) Why on earth would you value the opinion of what we'll just call "the poetically illiterate" over that of "the 'poetically educated'"? Do you imagine that these illiterates buy, publish, or commonly read poetry? 5) Well, mister, I happen to believe that everyone isn't equally qualified to speak as an authority on every subject, and that I shouldn't regard the views of someone less experienced than myself in some matter as equal to my own views on the matter. If you can't accept my point-of-view then it's you, sir, that's shallow, clothes-minded, and I daresay bigoted - not I. 6) "which you obviously lack" doesn't make any sense. If you say "I'm sorry you don't understand" again, you are a stellar example of the proposition "buttocum ergo sum." 7) How have you come to the astonishingly bright conclusion that "poemranker... is worthless for true criticism," (whatever that means, anyway)? Was it from the one poem other than your own that you've commented/voted on? Was it a result of all the failed attempts at real poetickal discourse on your fellow users' posts which have marked your stay on our site? No, I suspect it was because only two people bothered to comment in any way substantively on your poems, both of whom failed to blindly praise the dribblings of your genius and frankly understated the hideousness of the misshapen illogic that clings to them like dinner-crumbs in an elderly's unkempt beard. 8) Maybe this will drive home the fundamental difference between your conception of a "useful" poetry site and mine: zodiac Total Votes: 2669 Total Comments: 1905 Has read ALL of SomeKindofPoet's posts. SomeKindofPoet Total Votes: 0 Total Comments: 12 Has read NONE of zodiac's. 9) Hey, godspeed! Why don't you give Poets2000.com a shot? Or Poetry.com? They LOVE people like you! 10) Thanks for playing.
Re: Pushed to the limit of everything...Everything... by Hostileintent	23-May-04/9:42 AM
New form proposal: The Poemranker. Halfway through it decides to rhyme, forgets, then decides to again.
Re: leavetaking by daniella	23-May-04/9:36 AM
Some of these clauses, especially in the third stanza, seem poorly grouped. The last is weird, too. "they" is really poorly defined, and the string of grotesquely conjoined similes and subordinate clauses that make up the rest of that sentence don't help.
Re: screaming in silence by siyado	23-May-04/9:26 AM
When you're "screaming in silence" is your mouth actually producing some kind of, I don't know, anti-sound that is inaudible to everyone, or are you just screaming out loud somewhere really far away from other people? If your answer is the first one, how do you know the sound you're not producing is a scream? What if it's more like, say, a moan - or a pleasant sustained middle A sharp? Or what if you're just holding your mouth really wide and slowly exhaling while people passing on the street wonder what the heck you're doing?
Re: a comment on Reflections of the Living Dead by SomeKindofPoet	23-May-04/9:16 AM
1) Yes. But not because of me. 2) Who is the narrator of Frankenstein and what is his mission? Don't cheat. God will know. 3) I didn't think any of those things. 4) This one doesn't make any sense at all. And don't tell me what true criticism is. 5) Poemranker is often the subject of my own poetry. To wit, http://www.poemranker.com/poem-details.jsp?id=79942 http://www.poemranker.com/poem-details.jsp?id=79787 http://www.poemranker.com/poem-details.jsp?id=96636 6) If I don't give "constructive criticism" for this poem, it's because it needs to be entirely erased and rewritten by someone other than yourself on a topic other than the one you've chosen. Sorry. If I believed it was in any wise salvageable I'd be the first to tell you where to add a semicolon or adjust an image, really. 7)
Re: a comment on Reflections of the Living Dead by SomeKindofPoet	22-May-04/6:48 PM
re: "Both keep believing that this poem is about "religion" or a lost love, broken heart, etc. Can it be? Sure." It's not stupid to believe this poem is about religion. Observe: 1) You were referred to this site by Decapolis 2) Decapolis is a website where "hip" young "New Age" Christians get together to dish about religious stuff in, at best, a barely concealed fashion. 3) Many Decapolis users have posted exactly identical poems to this on the same Decapolis discussion board where you learned about this page. 4) It isn't really necessary to have a 4. You should have gotten the point by now. 5) -=Dark_Angel=- wasn't saying this poem is about lost love; he was saying that your kind of Decapolis-referred hack new poemranker user always posts poems which are only about religion or lost love. If you haven't posted a lost love poem by now, you will soon. What's more, "It can deal with many area's of life, but for two self-claimed geniuses to keep believing that it merely deals with two areas of life shows their incompetence for a wider range of thought" is crap for a dozen reasons. To wit, 1) We never said it merely deals with two areas of life; in fact, only I said it dealt with anything, which is religion. 2) I didn't even say this poem was only about religion. 3) I'll bet you a million bucks you can't say what this poem is about. PS-If you say it's about more than two things, you are a retard. 4) someone 'competent for a wider range of thought' wouldn't have made so many blunders already, such as the blunder of saying "incompetence for a wider range of thought." 5) Neither -=Dark_Angel=- nor I would ever be so stupid as to claim to be a genius. -=Dark_Angel=- has even taken the unprecedentedly honest step of posting his IQ on poemranker. Though I am the farthest thing from a "self-proclaimed genius," I am a society-proclaimed semi-expert in matters poetickal, having recently received a Master's in Poetry from an accredited Poetry School. 6) A poem about religion or God, or even solely about religion or God would not need to include the words "religion" or "God," you idiot. Cf. All the songs of Creed and Live. 7) Since I'm off the topic of the above-reprinted quote anyway, let me add a few things. None of the rest of your message after the "religion or god" part makes any sense. It's also presumptive to the max. To think any of the things you've suggested, I'd have to be a near-perfect retard. 8) If you've read Frankenstein, I'm my own left buttock. 9) I don't think you know what pretentious means. Allow me to propose this definition: Anything which impugns your, SomeKindofPoet's, poetickal superpowers. 10) Here's "a good, useful opinion" on your poetry: http://mycgiserver.com/~prawne/code.jsp?action=decode&thecode=9150F028 -11- 11) Making up two more reasons why your comment is crap is not worth the effort I've already expended on it. 12) Thanks.
Re: a comment on love comes but once by francis nor capule	21-May-04/3:42 PM
I always thought the slang term "box" was only used to describe female genitals. It does in the U.S., anyway.
Re: a comment on love comes but once by francis nor capule	21-May-04/9:12 AM
I hope you can understand some of my confusion. Most of this sport sounds utterly gay to me. To wit: "1641: Oram gains a reward for some tight spell and is overjoyed as Trescothick prods for an edge behind. New batsman Butcher survives despite a silly waft first ball."
Re: a comment on love comes but once by francis nor capule	21-May-04/9:00 AM
"1533: Oram returns after tea and makes Strauss play and miss but undoes his good work with a leg-side delivery that is clipped for four." I have no idea what this means.
Re: a comment on love comes but once by francis nor capule	21-May-04/8:52 AM
What's 192-1?
Re: a comment on love comes but once by francis nor capule	21-May-04/8:38 AM
cock
Re: Focus by Signature	21-May-04/6:09 AM
Why did you put this poem on your own favorites list?
Re: Reflections of the Living Dead by SomeKindofPoet	21-May-04/6:05 AM
The worst thing about this poem isn't that it's about religion. It's that you're either A) the world's biggest failure for allowing yourself to remain "reprobate" when you know how you should act/believe to be saved, or B) the world's biggest failure for presuming to know what reprobates think when you are not, in fact, one of them. If A) better describes you, why don't you just take control of your life, you ninny? If B) is closer to the truth (and I'll bet it is) why don't you write about something you actually know instead of casting your exceedingly self-righteous presumptions around like swollen buttocks? As it happens, I'm probably utterly reprobate, and yet my life isn't anything like this. In fact, every reprobate I know isn't like that. In any event, in your current form, you fail.
Re: love comes but once by francis nor capule	20-May-04/10:10 AM
Do you really know that love comes but once, or are you just saying that because it sounds poetic and preformulated? And how would you know that, anyway? By my own count, love has come for me about seven times - unless you really mean *cum*, in which case, sadly, the correct figure is never.
Re: a comment on Fear by Phalkon	20-May-04/10:03 AM
I lie awake and brood In my bedchamber, while nude. I lie alone and reflect, While fully or semi erect.
Re: a comment on Unwed by gilded in gold	20-May-04/9:04 AM
re: "i am really sorry that you don't like to mentally work while you read poetry, or my poem" I, for my part, am really sorry that you don't like to mentally work while you write poetry, as it means we have another week of reading this sloppy hash before you vanish forever from our hallowed halls without so much as a leaving rant. And I'm not a self-deemed expert in poetry-writing or interpretation. I'm a society-deemed semi-expert in it, having recently received a Master's in Poetry from an accredited Poetry School.
Re: a comment on Unwed by gilded in gold	20-May-04/6:35 AM
Oh dear. "the X are gilded in snow" means "the X are covered with snow, which resembles something covered with gold." That means you now have "the X are covered with gold, which resembles something covered with gold." Great!
Re: a comment on Unwed by gilded in gold	20-May-04/6:29 AM
"i leave a lot up to interpretation" is the buncombe dodge of an inveterate guffer. The only way you could say something like that and expect to keep even a shred of dignity would be to actually deliberately include a lot of things to be interpreted in your poem. And let's be up-front about this: it's as obvious as my own left buttock that you haven't. You've plopped down the first dozen words that occurred to you and told yourself you're being clever and ambiguous. Bow'ls. Hey, you wanna learn some new concepts? How about the interworking of different parts of a poem, maybe? Some consistency of imagery and/or metaphor? "i leave a lot up to interpretation." Bow'ls! say I. I get all flummoxed and constipated just trying to imagine where you learned to parrot such a useless phrase. Yes, a poet can leave a lot up to interpretation, and some very famous poets (i.e., W.C.Williams) made whole careers out of this sort of addleheaded guffing. But first you need to be a halfway decent poet, which means if you start your poem with an image like a roadmap, it has to go somewhere. Your "velvet" might work, if you gave more of a hint that the roadmap is worn down to vellum-softness by use - but you won't; you'll expect me to do all the associative work that you haven't done. And then I'll run into "nameless", "unpainted", and "a movie" right after that, none of them building on each other or even fitting very well with each other, and I'll reach the correct conclusion, as I have, that you have no idea what you're talking about. In short, _______. Hey, and thanks for not talking down to me about what poetry is and isn't in the future! Have a nice one!
Re: a comment on Fear by Phalkon	20-May-04/6:12 AM
A: I'm not "trying" to make myself seem better than you; I *know* I am. Just take a look at these glowing testimonials. "zodiac is totally ace" - Steve in Nebraska "Thar ain't none in these parts what shoots straighter and drinks harder'n that ol' dodger zodiac" - Hank in Montana "You're beautiful. You'll be a star" - Simon Cowell "You have the aura of election upon you" - Harold Bloom And I have many, many more. As far as "you obviously are lacking in many personal fields" goes, please explain. B: I'm apparently the only one who cares. *glows beatifically* C: What, indeed, would be the point? At any rate, you haven't posted anything on anyone's poems except your own and one each of dmzoacan's and Blindpoetry's. Why don't you give it a shot? D: You didn't hurt my feelings, you dimwit. That's not even close to what I said. E: Thanks.
Re: Reflections of the Living Dead by SomeKindofPoet	20-May-04/5:28 AM
Maybe you can explain something to me, SomeKindofPoet: on Decapolis people are always posting things like, "Topic: back-stabbing whores ...posted 05-12-2004 09:34 PM ack!!!! i'm sooooo livid right now. a supposed friend has just stabbed me and several of my friends in the back and horribly so. i'm so glad she's not here or i would most definitely kick the **** out of her... " and "like my wife used to always say.... "you can't trust a byatch."" and "Crap on a crap cracker. Josh." What I don't understand is why don't the Jesus Police bust these people's asses posthaste? Is that the way young "hip" Christians talk these days? I don't know about you, but in case of Rapture *this* car will be unoccupied. Thanks.