poemranker ::20 most recent comments by zodiac (141-160) and replies

Comments byzodiac, 141–160 back, including replies. Only comments on poems

replying on Numbers In Heaven by Dovina 13 Mar 2006, 9:34 AM
S = 19th letter of the alphabet
E = 5th
E = 5th

1 + 9 + 5 + 5 = 20

= 4 + 4 x 4

replying on Numbers In Heaven by Dovina 13 Mar 2006, 9:24 AM
No, she's referencing Plato. Plato's bunk.
replying on We Do Not Write About by faithmairee 13 Mar 2006, 9:21 AM
We so do know the square root of infinity.
replying on Numbers In Heaven by Dovina 13 Mar 2006, 9:11 AM
PS-I can produce 3, 4, or 12 with almost any number.
replying on Numbers In Heaven by Dovina 13 Mar 2006, 9:10 AM
There is nothing eternal about numerology.
on We Do Not Write About by faithmairee 13 Mar 2006, 9:07 AM
Stop writing about what you don't know. Or do. I don't care.
on i realize by http://robynhood 13 Mar 2006, 9:06 AM
Invest in education. It makes relationships so much less blurry.
on Desolation by Beyond_Dreams 13 Mar 2006, 9:02 AM
You don't seem to have ever read actual poetry.
on Numbers In Heaven by Dovina 13 Mar 2006, 9:01 AM
You're doing it again and you know it. And you know I know it. There is nothing eternal about 183. Nor is there any point thinking so. In short, you fail in the most eternal possible respect.
on Emo Kid by Fayt 13 Mar 2006, 8:57 AM
Not a limerick or funny. Please stop reposting this.
replying on Breakfast by Dhanesh M Kumar 11 Mar 2006, 10:07 AM
Wow, this is the best cynicism-related comment on poemranker ever.

I should mention, I gave my wife the Two Prisoners problem yesterday and she solved it in 5 minutes, math and all. Sometimes she simply astonishes me. She said it's because she knew, with you guys, the problem was going to end sitting in a cell, flipping a coin by yourself.
on Navy Pier by matt door 11 Mar 2006, 10:03 AM
Stop posting this same poem. Are you ready to be Mature now, Doug?
replying on Breakfast by Dhanesh M Kumar 10 Mar 2006, 10:09 AM
According to almost everybody, it's actually Paul Wolfowitz. Who, as much as it pains me to say it, has not been adequately tested for Israel-Devotion.
replying on There by Dovina 9 Mar 2006, 12:40 PM
That's just stupid. Seriously, it's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. What if, instead of being about God, this conversation had taken the following tack?

DOVINA: I believe The Giant Salami flies around delivering gifts to crippled children on St Crispin's day.

-=Dark_Angel=-: Salamis are silly meats, you ugly bint.

ZODIAC: I think -=Dark_Angel=- is rude and should apologize.

First, the preceding dialogue is exactly equivalent to the cartoon brouhaha. Second, do you mean to say that in order to think -=Dark_Angel=- is rude and out of line, I have to believe The Giant Salami actually exists? That's insane. Thirdly, your head's full of beans.
replying on There by Dovina 8 Mar 2006, 6:14 PM
Oh, so you're just full of beans?
replying on There by Dovina 8 Mar 2006, 9:08 AM
Do you suppose thinking cartoonists who disrespect Islams are dogs and thinking -=Allah=- exists are somehow intrinsically connected? Here's an analogy: You have a belief that God exists. -=Dark_Angel=- mercilessly mocks that belief. I don't believe in God, but I think -=Dark_Angel=- is an uncouth bum. I'm sure he would agree. Thanks.
on War on Iraq by Dhanesh M Kumar 7 Mar 2006, 9:55 AM
Inta 3raqi? 3rab?
replying on There by Dovina 7 Mar 2006, 9:26 AM
Why is it necessary to understand God in all his bum-swelling fullness to believe in Him - or even "get it" for all intents and purposes? According to Augustine, none of us understand the concept of infinite time and space, but that doesn't stop us from setting out microwave timers to make Hot Pockets just right.
replying on There by Dovina 7 Mar 2006, 9:23 AM
I sincerely didn't know we were agreeing. Would I had still said it if I'd known? I'd like to think so. But then, I also think that situation won't ever actually arise.
replying on There by Dovina 6 Mar 2006, 4:25 PM
This is insane. It's perfectly easy for a man-made description to apply to God. For example, the man-made adjective "god-like" means "having qualities like God's." Of course, that description applies excellently to God. If it's misused in describing people or things that DON'T have qualities like God's, that's not exactly God's fault, now, is it?