Re: a comment on evolution 9 by wilco	26-Apr-04/7:05 AM
Compare: http://www.issuesetc.org/resource/ archives/oldearth.htm http://www.wrestedscriptures.com/c03carbon-14/carbon14.html
Re: a comment on evolution 9 by wilco	26-Apr-04/6:59 AM
Of course they did.
Re: a comment on A Proclamation to Our Lord by Joe-joe	26-Apr-04/6:10 AM
Now as they were making their hearts merry, behold, the men of the city, certain sons of Belial, beset the house round about, and beat at the door, and spake to the master of the house, the old man, saying, Bring forth the man that came into thine house, that we may know him. And the man, the master of the house, went out unto them, and said unto them, Nay, my brethren, nay, I pray you, do not so wickedly; seeing that this man is come into mine house, do not this folly. Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing. But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go. Judges 19:22-25
Re: a comment on A Proclamation to Our Lord by Joe-joe	26-Apr-04/6:03 AM
And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother's wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother. And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother. And the thing which he did displeased the LORD: wherefore he slew him also. Gen 38:8-10
Re: a comment on The True Irony by thepinkbunnyofdoom	26-Apr-04/3:34 AM
What a surprise.
Re: a comment on To Be Happy by embersandenvelopes	25-Apr-04/3:19 PM
Nope.
Re: To Be Happy by embersandenvelopes	25-Apr-04/6:47 AM
"My memories, reduced, don't reside at your distaste." - Do you have any idea what this means?
Re: a comment on She Searches For Love by validus_vox	24-Apr-04/6:54 PM
And as far as 'taking what i am trying to portray in the wrong manner,' are you aware that you are following a 6,000 year-old tradition of men writing in a condescending fashion about women? Probably very few of those men were conscious of how they participated in and perpetuated a system that allowed for the wholesale repression of half the earth's population; they were just writing about girls they knew, just like you are. So what the hell sort of manner am I supposed to take something like this in? Now, I am the kind of person who right or wrong believes writers and other artists are obliged to be aware of that tradition and, by any of several means, avoid continuing it. I have suggested one way to avoid generalizing all women as man-worshipping dolts; there are many others. If you'd like, I can tell you about them.
Re: a comment on She Searches For Love by validus_vox	24-Apr-04/6:43 PM
Who said anything about hating? Please pay attention: I said explicitly that if this poem is about a specific person then of course it's fine because if poetry should be allowed to do anything, that thing should be to faithfully depict real-life circumstances in an interesting or original fashion. Yes, I do believe that. However, if I attempted any kind of generalization out of these two poems, it would be that women in general are rather weak and flighty and men are strong and patronizing. This is something you should be aware of people doing when reading your poems, and possibly correct with something as simple as naming the woman in this poem "Sarah" or something, so that at worst we can only generalize that women named Sarah are weak and flighty, or at least have a better idea that you're speaking of a specific person you know and not commenting on the intelligence of all women. This has NOTHING TO DO with what you meant to say. And I didn't say anything about you being a rapist or kidnapper. I suggested that if I had a teenaged daughter (which I don't) and you were a teenaged boy who drove a customized van, perhaps with flame decals around the hood, or a custom sound system and vibrating fold-out waterbed and blacklight (which you almost certainly don't), I wouldn't let you take her out for a date. Don't take it personally: I'm a very protective hypothetical father like that.
Re: a comment on She Searches For Love by validus_vox	24-Apr-04/4:53 PM
I don't mean any offense - really. But you have to be aware of that sort of thing. I'm pretty sure claiming ignorance doesn't go over too well with critics these days.
Re: She Searches For Love by validus_vox	24-Apr-04/4:12 PM
I find it fascinating that you posted this piece "She Searches for Love" almost simultaneously with "He Hunts for Meaning." The parallels in the titles, if nothing else, beg someone to do a good feminist deconstruction on them, the result of which will inevitably be that your Woman-Searching-for-Love is daft, weak, and better off carried on her quest for love, which she believes is truth - while your Man-Hunting (nb-Hunting is something substantially different from searching) for Meaning (not Love) is self-sufficient, undaunted by hardship, and worshipped by women, especially "his friend," the object-not-subject of his search, who is mainly "confused" by his grandoise pronouncements, none of which are particularly deep. Ergo, men=great, women=suck. Which is fine if you're only trying to describe one particularly weak woman who you happen to know, but personally I wouldn't let you take my daughter anywhere in that tint-windowed van of yours.
Re: a comment on You by Fire_is_cool	24-Apr-04/10:38 AM
It's "Child of My Buttocks" by -=Dark_Angel=-.
Re: a comment on You by Fire_is_cool	24-Apr-04/6:43 AM
"Child of death" is not the same person as "daughter of satan himself". Satan's daughter is Sin, born fully formed out of his head the moment he began to conspire against Jesus. Satan raped Sin to produce Death, who upon being born immediately raped her as well, begetting all kinds of foul creatures. (PL 1:629-1055)
Re: fortune cookie by the indign	24-Apr-04/6:32 AM
This is how "Kubla Khan" would sound if Coleridge had done the crack instead of the smack.
Re: a comment on Radiation Reflections by sarah	24-Apr-04/3:37 AM
Crap, I've screwed it up again. No, wait, I haven't.
Re: a comment on Radiation Reflections by sarah	24-Apr-04/3:25 AM
Dear sarah, Don't let -=Dark_Angel=- get you down. You and I both know that our lives *are* a game played by TheFather and Jesus and exactly equal in form and complexity to any halfway decent role-playing game (think Baldur's Gate II or the real AD&D), much as the role-playing games we play on Earth control 'real' lives in some other universe. In fact, you could say that this game is just a thing in which lives take place. Pull, zodiac
Re: a comment on Dear M Foucault, or, How I knew our relationship was doomed by zodiac	23-Apr-04/10:54 AM
Don't defend me. I misspoke and needed punishing.
Re: a comment on Dear M Foucault, or, How I knew our relationship was doomed by zodiac	23-Apr-04/10:05 AM
No.
Re: a comment on Dear M Foucault, or, How I knew our relationship was doomed by zodiac	23-Apr-04/7:38 AM
Drat.
Re: a comment on Dear M Foucault, or, How I knew our relationship was doomed by zodiac	23-Apr-04/7:12 AM
Think of how often, in the middle of doing something pointless and pleasurable, you suddenly think, hey, I wish there was some way I could be paid to do this for the rest of my life. Sure, you'd probably better spend your time developing an AIDS cure or portable non-polluting jetpack that runs on urine, but at least you're not developing super-cholera am I right? And you can (make a living doing something pointless, I mean,) provided no-one realizes how pointless it is - else they'd stop buying your books or taking your classes. Philosophers are the best at this, followed by writers. Any decent philosopher has to have noticed that no new idea has been formulated in the field of philosophy since 1) all questions in philosophy are steaming cornucopiae of bow'ls, and 2) this is probably because there's no way to really know anything with any degree of certainty. And maybe 3) there is no God worth thinking much about in this lifetime. As far as I know, all of these were said pretty well in the 19th century, if not before. Naturally, philosophers can't come out and say that or they'd lose tenure, so they've spun it out endlessly in gobbledygook code and hundreds if not thousands of people have lived long comfortable lives doing philosophy instead of having to work in coal mines or something. That said, certain philosophers probably do think they're saying something new and important. These are the gay ones. The half-decent ones know it's just a game and treat it as such, i.e., Wittgenstein. That's fine. Incidentally, if you think you're life is something more than a game, then it's most likely just a more deadly game, i.e., designing super-cholera or participating in Middle Eastern politics. I haven't read Wittgenstein since I was required to do so years ago, and I don't think I ever will again. It's sufficient for me to condense his entire body of work into a one-line summary which I use to whiffle-bat anyone who thinks anything means anything.