|
|
| Author |
Message |
octavius
|
|
Obituarary
| 
Feb 9 02:28 UTC 1996 |
The person who writes about dead guys passed away today
There is little else that we can say
He started every sentence with Mister-
So we brought in someone fired by Twisted Sister.
She says the guy who rudely called in-
Complaining about the grammar school to which he'd been
Is surely going to rot well in (Ex. Del.)
She's examined the column overly,
And cannot a person whose compalint worthy,
Laws of grammar go ignored
Much like this poem, but not quite a bore.
Nor does she see that they can write,
Surly they see the letter writer's plight
To have their opinions surplanted,
By people saying "MY idea is..." (not even planted.)
What right do they have complain-
While the true letter writers go insane
Seeing dingbats express public thought
When they actually a stamp had bought.
For evolution's sake this call in people should
give up breathing
(A sentence which bears repeating.)
Instead of taking up the phone to talk,
They should probably go out for a walk.
Leaving the real commentary to those they fell know how-
If you've signed your name to such letter take a bow.
For they do not write in anonymity,
Perhaps this is a reason for the brave ones' hostility.
This was "inspired", if indeed, that is the proper word for this, by
someone calling in to a stupid column in our local paper complaining about
the obituarary writer's starting every paragraph with Mister or Mrs., and
suggesting they be more creative.
Judging by the general grammar rules that are followed (more are
ignoredthan even I could do delibrately), most of these people have no
right to
complain.
|
| 21 responses total. |
shade
|
|
response 1 of 21:
|
Feb 9 06:50 UTC 1996 |
(why not post it in poetry?)
|
octavius
|
|
response 2 of 21:
|
Feb 9 17:54 UTC 1996 |
I do not feel like joning a new conference.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 3 of 21:
|
Feb 9 21:06 UTC 1996 |
The usual thing to do is have it linked to another appropriate cf.
|
shade
|
|
response 4 of 21:
|
Feb 9 23:52 UTC 1996 |
(gee gosh golly, I cold link it to poetry...being the fairwitness and all
but i'm lazy you know)
|
shade
|
|
response 5 of 21:
|
Feb 9 23:55 UTC 1996 |
(tis done)
|
rlawson
|
|
response 6 of 21:
|
Feb 10 00:03 UTC 1996 |
She how moody she is... one minute she's lazy, the next she can be something
totally different. <robert kisses jenna sweetly> :)
|
arianna
|
|
response 7 of 21:
|
Feb 10 00:58 UTC 1996 |
Right on, this is neat. (=
|
shade
|
|
response 8 of 21:
|
Feb 10 19:40 UTC 1996 |
(actually I just trial and errored until I figured out how to link
items)
|
octavius
|
|
response 9 of 21:
|
Feb 11 02:22 UTC 1996 |
Well, she can feel free to pick on my laziness since she's probably
still upset about the spelling thing, but I do not consider myself a
great poet (look at the rhythym and meter, they are not at all consistent)
and prefer to stick to prose, unfortunately, there is nothing to post here
for me right now.
|
shade
|
|
response 10 of 21:
|
Feb 11 05:11 UTC 1996 |
(I didn't care about the spelling thing, except that you said nohing
else about the piece)
|
octavius
|
|
response 11 of 21:
|
Feb 11 17:02 UTC 1996 |
Was it the vampire thing? I do not care much for Vampires, and become
sickened when I hear people raving about Anne Rice..., I'd much rather read
the good works by other authors in the section her books are misapropriately
placed in. (Such as Clarke.)
|
octavius
|
|
response 12 of 21:
|
Feb 11 17:05 UTC 1996 |
Kindly disregard the last entry.
|
shade
|
|
response 13 of 21:
|
Feb 11 20:47 UTC 1996 |
Why? I don't like Anne Rice either. Wordy. Much better movie. no
long descriptive passages. I don't remember if it was vampyres
or soemthing else, sci fi, realistic fiction, jsut plain
strange. Don't recall.
|
cornflk
|
|
response 14 of 21:
|
Feb 12 01:02 UTC 1996 |
The only Anne Rice book I liked was "The Mummy or Rames the Damned" it sort
of departs from her usual style. I don't know... I read it a few years ago.
|
octavius
|
|
response 15 of 21:
|
Feb 13 22:50 UTC 1996 |
I'll take Science Fiction any day, personally.
|
shade
|
|
response 16 of 21:
|
Feb 14 00:58 UTC 1996 |
OOps...I didn't mean to respond, but so will I, for that matter
|
cornflk
|
|
response 17 of 21:
|
Feb 17 18:21 UTC 1996 |
Amen to that, but (and prehaps I should be a bit more discriminating in my
reading tastes) I generally read anything with print that I can understand,
but I do much perfer Sci Fi.
|
octavius
|
|
response 18 of 21:
|
Feb 18 22:58 UTC 1996 |
Perhaps I should enter some more of my stuff here. I have been bereft
of ideas for short stories lately, though.
|
octavius
|
|
response 19 of 21:
|
Feb 18 23:00 UTC 1996 |
I keep forgetting this item is in the poetry conference also. So much
for the image of the mighty Roman Emperor I stole my login name from.
|
shade
|
|
response 20 of 21:
|
Feb 19 00:36 UTC 1996 |
;} it's okay
|
octavius
|
|
response 21 of 21:
|
Feb 19 14:38 UTC 1996 |
Just a sid e not I should not have ended that one sentence with "also",
and I should have completed the thought in the second...
|
