|
Post by foreverdrone on May 18, 2011 3:51:30 GMT -5
why does a large amount of water ≈≈ ocean ≈≈ sound soothing, but a tiny amount of water drip is almost as irritating as— a baby crying for 1 hr (mommy too exhausted to suckle) or— a ringing telephone, which no one bothers to pick up ¿
|
|
|
Post by foreverdrone on May 18, 2011 6:32:28 GMT -5
newbie alert! newbie alert! [glow=red,2,300]blush[/glow]
Couldn't figure out how to indent. The "font" tag produces rather nice results, I [can only] imagine. This is: if one knows which fonts are accepted, and how they are specified. As is [pain/plain]fully evident: I don't know.
Ah Brave New sort of Weirdness, with such "what is this [expliteve redacted]" in it? i.e. when I blindly (almost unintentionally) stumble upon specifying a four-digit number (Unicode, I bet...?) which representing an extraordinarily obscure character--it's being a sorta mathematical operator I thinks, one which happen to visually trans_reassemblea ocean waves--yet I couldn't figure out how to enter the typographer's-standby em-dash?
Then, as if to put an exclamation point (metaphorically speaking) on my ignorance, my grimmer goes to Perdition as simultaneously at the same time the 5 letters making up a common-as-dirt word "water" is *tsktsk Trotsky* truncated
...which wouldn't leave halogenated, if I hadn't accidentally confused the "[ post ]" button with the "[ preview ]" button.
|
|
|
Post by foreverdrone on May 18, 2011 11:52:08 GMT -5
From the subject line's "------" it would appear that my having explicitly referenced the [late] recipient of my homage is a faux pas?
Please please, I must know: is such an effort regarded as plagiarism. I confess it is hardly the utmost in originality, but I did not intend either disrespect nor direct appropriation of someone else's original work.
If I have offended, my apologies.
|
|
|
Post by marise on May 19, 2011 22:38:32 GMT -5
Firstly, welcome to TPS
Secondly, as far as I know, the only reason this '------' happens, is if you have used an 'inappropriate' word, i.e. swearing or the name of a part of the body that is not child friendly.
As for the formatting, don't worry too much, you should be able to edit it if you want to though, there should be a 'Modify' button at the top right hand corner of your post. That helps especially when you accidentally press 'Post' instead of 'Preview'.
RE the karma.. ominous maybe but certainly no reflection of you or your poetry. It is a fickle thing.
Now, your poem! I thought it was wonderful, I loved the look into how something as a whole, something with mass and uniformity could be so accepted and comforting and almost peaceful, while the single voice, the voice that lingers difference, is almost irritating for its incessant uniqueness.
That may not be what you intended, but it is a powerful metaphor none the less.
|
|
|
Post by foreverdrone on May 21, 2011 3:36:03 GMT -5
Thanks for the welcome! And despite my occasionally difficult-to-fathom post, it's evident you saw (at least as far) into its intent as much as I'd intended. In fact, further than the creator realized himself. The latter IMO can be a good indicator that one's imagination is humming along productively: i.e. when the creator isn't consciously aware of every aspect of the creation. (Not a manifesto, merely an observation. I neither intend--nor hope--to open that critical-theory can of worms popularly known as "death of the author" .) Somehow I have a feeling a word such as "sickle"--if, let's say, the letter "U" were substituted for its first vowel--might be among those getting automatically flagged as "foul." Hence the circumlocution in my previous sentence: an experiment in which I've modified the word slightly, to see whether the dreaded multiple hyphens will appear (again). Why that seemingly-innocuous word? I'm recalling an incident, something along the lines of aol.com blacklisting the word "breast," despite its appearing in a breast-cancer forum, because the word was assumed to be evidence of pornographic activities. My facts may not be entirely correct, but I'll provide weirdnews.aol.com/tag/keep-a-breast-foundation {hmm...} a link for anyone interested in reading further about this (or similar) encroachments upon free speech: not involving prior restraint exercised by governments, but by those private tyrannies known as corporations. Continuing to struggle with the editor and the formatting options! Yes I've located the F.A.Q. and TPS Information and Support Center. Attempting to learn how to use the url tag, but the search function--the only way I've found which allows me to learn more about using this forum, without laboriously reading every single word of aforementioned documents--requires search terms to be at least four letters in length. Forget about isolating " " it would seem.
Ah well at least the link is readable if not clickable.
Digression having subsided... Why that word? I have a couple of guesses. There's the peculiarly American mode of thinking in which any reference to a breast is assumed to refer to coitus, also. If a breast were a sex organ (and solely that!) then how could babies ever obtain enough nourishment to grow into adults?
While the U.S. roiled over a "wardrobe malfunction," most of the world wondered why we make such a fuss over that body part. (Barely restraining myself from making a Zappa reference here: "What's the ugliest part of your body?" and you can imagine the answer begins with a "b" but is a five-letter word, certainly not six.) Given our inexplicable disquiet surrounding certain natural bodily functions, it's not surprising the word I employed--rhymes with "muckle"--is not in common parlance.
|
|
|
Post by foreverdrone on May 21, 2011 3:38:55 GMT -5
it would appear the word for the female mammary gland is verboten here at the Poet Sanctuary, every bit as much as America Online!
(imagine sad emoticon here)
|
|
|
Post by foreverdrone on May 22, 2011 17:24:29 GMT -5
Possessing an allegedly-formidable vocabulary: I can be a touch slow on the uptake, sesquipedalian loquaciousness notwithstanding. Sometimes we miss the obvious, precisely because of its utter likelihood. Like cramming for a tough Mensa exam when the looming challenge is more like a TV Guide crossword. The "breast" thing was a red herring. No...the problem was the poet's name itself! (Uh, which poet?) Sadly I cannot use his surname without making red lights flash and bells clang. But I am allowed to describe him. Esteemed for painterly use of white space on the page, and notorious for (supposedly?) eschewing uppercase and punctuation entirely ...this utterly-literary (not prurient) antecedent Mr. e.e. suffers the posthumous misfortune of having a last name which--to an Internet filtering program--sounds as if it came off the marketing copy on a hardcore videotape! " Lots and lots of...[insert poet's name here]" Not that I have any familiarity with such sordid matter. As for my ostensibly " vocabulaire formidable," the more-skeptical reader may demand a form of proof. Such are among the reasons I'll confess having achieved a proud-yet-frustratingly-just-short-of ____ title: namely, state spelling champ 1983. ( Other reasons: vanity? Reliving glory days? Inability to stick to one topic for more than a couple paragraphs? Pathological wordiness?) I'd joined the competition on a whim, my ignorance/insouciance thwarting any fantasies of visiting the national final. My lack of sustained effort was reflected in my failure to spell (or even identify) one particular word. I contend the "event" somehow reveals my casual approach: but why? Because I got tripped up by a classic "study word," familiar to any truly-serious spelling competitor: one who'd pored over printed word lists, their typewritten/photocopied covers decorated with blandishments of predicted/guaranteed victory if one memorized all the verbal speedtraps contained therein. That's a word I'll never forget, now! Among the reasons for its frequent appearance in lists of "difficult-to-spell" words: - almost never used in casual, contemporary conversation
- because no one can pronounce it correctly (hyperbole, but only slightly)
- begins with an unusual combination of four letters, which--at the start of a word--are unique in the English language (i.e. what's next to it in the dictionary? nothing.)
If you begin by typing (correctly) "E-L-E-E" on a device with auto-predictive spellcheck typing (like an iPhone), the entire word will instantly appear. Yep, my nemesis was "eleemosynary," defined as "pertaining to the giving of alms." After speeding effortlessly past my opponents at these levels--school, district and county--the dreaded "E" word was the first I'd encountered up to that point not in my vocabulary. The entire experience was an excursion into serendipity, so I never felt particularly frustrated or bitter about the loss. A little disappointed? Yes. (Shoulda remembered the Boy Scout motto, "Be prepared.")
|
|
|
Post by foreverdrone on Mar 30, 2012 2:21:45 GMT -5
Immediately obvious to myself‒and perhaps to others already familiar with graphomania as a symptom‒my "style" in reply #1 reflected immersion in a manic state (which has yet to recur). In such straits, my most common idiosyncrasy was intentional misspellings: intended either as portmanteaux, or as a not-terribly-amusing hybrid of malapropisms + eye dialect. Sprinkled with forms of associational slippage I failed to suppress. (As for what I might have intended by "halogenated," the state-dependent features of memory have left me uncharacteristically, uh...speechless.)
I'm not even bipolar! Recently, though, I've found a new therapist. Necessary, after my shrink (with whom I'd had a good relationship for almost ten years) insisted I was, indeed, bipolar. Despite having shown signs of unipolar depression from ages 11 through 46 and nothing else? He insisted: secretly, I'd been bipolar all along.
Also, that common symptom of mania‒i.e. "disinhibition"‒personally manifests primarily by staying holed up in my apartment, sitting at the keyboard nearly 24 hours a day, attempting to write the suburban-American version of Finnegans Wake. Insomnia has been (as an adult) a lifelong problem: and which‒as a classic symptom of mania‒clearly was being intensified. Fortunately, that meant being "a danger to self or others" loomed largest only if it could be accomplished via email, or other electronic means of communication.
Had enough of meds. Especially considering the MD insisted upon a "mood stabilizer," leading to the classic question: would you prefer the cure or the disease? After educating myself on neuroleptic side-effects such as akathisia and tardive dyskinesia, it felt urgent to locate a practitioner less apt to regard any psychiatric medication as harmless.
(The manic episode turned out to have been caused by Rx interactions. Which he refused to believe; after all, he prescribed them!)
Fortunately, extreme wordiness continues to be my only semi-permanent symptom.
As long suspected, the real issue is schizotypal personality disorder. Isolated? On disability, hence too much free time? "Unusual perceptual experiences" (not hallucinations), "ideas of reference (not delusions), and a tangential style of speech. Check, check, check, check and check. Aren't euphemisms helpful?
"I've caught poetry."
"Really? I used to suffer from short stories."
"When?"
"Oh, once upon a time...."
|
|