leonardcohenforum.com

brightnow wrote:That thing called "language" that you play with, that you love so much, that you're so good at, was once used to communicate facts and ideas. Can you believe it?

.. hate to have to repeat myself, but:

Violet wrote:

.. if posters everywhere could just understand this one simple fact:

.. please take notice that with EVERY mishap in these parts.. and, in so speaking, in all matters of, uh, "untowardness," as it were.. [or, most, at least].. one usually finds........ THAT'S RIGHT: a fish. [or a close fish relative]

[or whatever those things are called],

Judge Violet [small catch court]

WHAT HAS VIOLET LEARNED:

.. okay, what I've learned today is that the next time I go searching for my own heart's desire-- no, wait.. that was Dorothy..

.. no, what I've learned today is that the next time I think I can just post willy-nilly anything that rolls off the top of my [seemingly] over-taxed head, I should probably

I think I'll leave that as a dangler. [keep some suspense going]

ANYWAY.. I do think it's time to close this joint.. [Chez Fishez].. and rest assured, Violet did learn something. As to what, we may never know exactly.. though if enough hard liquor is consumed at her back yard party on the 30th, there is some possibility that

Okay: night all,

v i o l e t (flower) xx x

[oh, and fish: I'm not through with you. I have no idea what I mean by that exactly, but I do know I mean it.. so: watch it!] [by the way, fishie, do you like it when I underline the exclamation points?.. or, would you prefer if I do as I did here, and leave the exclamation point out of it altogether?] [just wondering.. I have a hard time deciding such things]

Goodnight Queen of the (Under) Sea

XO

" ... Lizzy.. the "offending" posting, so called, is the very first post on this thread. Personally, I can't read it and take it seriously, so I'm the last one to know what is offensive here (!)"

Oh. It's ALL a ruse?? You didn't even GET a "Second 'Moderator' Complaint"? [Your getting a First would be no surprize, but surely you'd have learned your lesson from that... ]

Avi – you’re visiting!
I know I’ve been cranky lately … but
… would you mind coming a little closer
I’m
… going
. . . to bite you.

just kidding - nice to see you here.


The offending posts aren't really offending ... so much as I can tell Lizzy. The impersonator fish(es) post(s) something and then some time after the whole thread is removed. Violet has had some wonderful responses clipped because of who she was responding to (fishey) ... not because of naughty behaviour on her part - at least that's what I think.

My interpretation of Violets first post on this thread was that she was using humour to lightly say ouch - why are you taking away my words too

Cate wrote:
The offending posts aren't really offending ... so much as I can tell Lizzy. The impersonator fish(es) post(s) something and then some time after the whole thread is removed. Violet has had some wonderful responses clipped because of who she was responding to (fishey) ... not because of naughty behaviour on her part - at least that's what I think.

My interpretation of Violets first post on this thread was that she was using humour to lightly say ouch - why are you taking away my words too

Cate has won the grand prize with this particular interpretation [moderaturz pleez take note], and shall receive a free night out at Red Lobster. [to those not from these parts, one could wish her better than that. All complaints in that direction, however, should be directed to:

FISH INC.
go-fish@go-fish.net

Hi Cate ~

Thanks for the explanation, however, I understood that to be the case from the beginnning. My question, however, related to WHAT was the CONTENT of the posting that had been removed, due to a moderator's complaint... or to a complaint made to the moderator. The first posting in THIS thread is clearly a spoof. My question was what was the posting that was deemed so offensive as to remove it and all its responses. I understood her intent of the message leading her thread here [the waters ain't THAT muddy ]. With Violet's answer to me, however, it seemed that the posting here WAS the posting deemed 'offensive' enough to warrant moderator complaint/removal... hence, her response only muddied the waters and it must be time to change the water in the fish bowl.

Since I did understand the intent of posting #1 here, I'd like a free night out at Fisherman's Wharf, thank you.

lizzytysh wrote:
Since I did understand the intent of posting #1 here, I'd like a free night out at Fisherman's Wharf, thank you.

.. again, that's:

Violet wrote: FISH INC.
go-fish@go-fish.net

Okay.. to the best of my recollection here's the "pome" deemed so offensive:

Moderaturz must hav Applez in their trowzers
Leonard Coehn probly wont post at ths 4um
cuz of
censorshit
dis he spel coreclty
who can say?

.. etc. etc.. [it's actually a lot harder to write like that than I give him credit for] [who knew??]

oh, but I did bronze: 4um .. oh, and I may have offered my "concrapulashenz"..

.. I also expressed my surprise [to the moderaturz] that snailquo's pome was still posted [as it had been up a while] and so I agreed with snail, that they must have Applez in their trowzers, given I thought he'd be but a faint pleasant memory heading down the gullet of a Frenchman by that point.. [I'm particularly upset that the moderaturz would remove my Frenchie reference, by the way]

I also opened up a serious conversation on censorshit [B.N.].. so.. [B.N.].. now that I've presented that startling bit of news, just WHO'S the BRIGHT one NOW, huh?.. you don't have an answer for that one, do you, smart stuff??

.. (my god)..



[fish: you are cooked shellfish, as far as I'm concerned, so don't get-- hmm.. I was hoping I could work "cockles" into "cocky".. what would that be?.. cockelsy??] [it somehow loses something I feel]

lizzytysh wrote:.. With Violet's answer to me, however, it seemed that the posting here WAS the posting deemed 'offensive' enough to warrant moderator complaint/removal... hence, her response only muddied the waters and it must be time to change the water in the fish bowl.

.. my posting was deemed offensive to the two posters that followed. That's the confusion. Of course, my confusion is how my "brief" complaint has now snowballed.. [uh, fishbowled].. and meanwhile the real culprit is out on high seas, probably, happily nibbling on some fresh seaweed or something!! Do you see the injustice??.. [the injustfish, I mean?].. (who can say?)


later note: I'm just now realizing that in that last post, the term should have been: "concrabulashenz".. [don't know how I missed that fish whatnot, or just "fishnot"] [remember: Shakespeare made up over a thousand words, so I get to make up a few] [gad, I'm so distracted today, I really might as well be dunking for applez]

Oh hiya cate! ... I'm just passing through the bad part of town for a minute, don't think I'll make a habit of playing here.

Oh, my, what have I started? I second Avi's comment: I'm only passing through these parts (BIG mistake!), and I will not do so again! (To clarify, I was not so much "offended" by the initial post as merely a bit "taken aback." But, obviously, I knew not of what I spoke!)

Goodbye! From now on, you'll only find me in the Leonard Cohen threads!

Cheers, and have fun in your world,
Lisa

Alright, violet. Now you've really gone too far.

"Millions of dead fish swamp L.A.-area marina
'Tons and tons of dead fish rotting'; boats stuck in harbor"


Making your point is one thing, but doing this to [your] New York's sister state of CA has resulted in a very distasteful mess... I never took you for a bottom feeder.

brightnow wrote:Oh hiya cate! ... I'm just passing through the bad part of town for a minute, don't think I'll make a habit of playing here.

.. oh, and I thought you were just loosening, up, B.N..

Anyway, you and Lisa might both take note that things are not always like this back here. There are actually some fairly interesting conversations at times. You just dropped in on a, well, fishy thread. We do have fish free zones, and in such instances, you might be surprised.

Lizzy, on the other hand, is getting REAL smart in this thread.. I like this side of you L., although I can't take responsibility for L.A.. I mean, as much as I'd like to think my grandiosity extends to earthly events, I've learned the hard way that that just ain't so. Actually, what's the opposite of grandiosity?.. I'm pretty sure that's what I have. Especially right now.. (I just came back from therapy, and you think this thread is a mess.. my god)..

v. x

Well, violet, it's a part of me I like to keep under gills, if at all possible [unintendedly, it's gotten me caught in some pretty bad situations in the past... I'm only still 'here' because I happened to be in a catch-and-release zone, but it still wasn't a pretty sight... some claimed they saw blood]. When I saw the photo of your she'nanigans, though, I was so attrawled I had to say something. Speaking of something, note that the first word beneath the photo says "Some of . . . " How many more are there, violet?? A foot thick in some places, it says. Do you know how many fish that is? Do you? Do you even care? By the looks of these spoils, quickly spoiling, I'd have thought you'd have been happy with your catch... but no. There are more. Many more. These are my kin, no longer even fit for a pan... and those still surviving are looking quite blue in the gills themselves. Now soulless and disoriented, their tails between their fins, they've fled upstream and they're not salmon. Just swimmin to distraction on a grand scale, looking for a wrapper. All the family fish stories for generations to come... gone. I just hope to hear that you brought this up in your next session and processed the mass culling.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41972653/ns ... ?GT1=43001

I've been told that treading water works pretty well for keeping one distracted from one's guilt. Good luck, violet. Oh. And I hope you know how to swim. It didn't seem to do them much good, though, now did it.