>>23
You put a paranoid, "Internet bully"'s interpretation on it as usual.

I just happened to think that post no 21 on this thread was one of the more intelligent and interesting remarks I've read on a Cracky board - one of the very few, indeed, that can be so described - and the main meaning of my post no 22 was plainly just a word to the poster: "Interesting idea; are you familiar with this other expression of a related idea?"

It's called friendly, educated conversation - something which one sees precious little of on these boards but which would certainly make them better, more interesting places.

As to the Cracky / RavRav thing, you also utterly misinterpret it in terms of your own "punk and bully" mentality of "someone sucks, someone else is 'queen'". RavRav hasn't been seen on these boards for years, so I doubt if she's in the least bit interested in beating out Boxxy, Cracky or any other -y for some infantile little status as "fanboy's favorite".

The claim that a poem written around 1900 is "recognized by schloars" to be about one girl born circa 1990 and not about another girl born circa 1990 is plainly just self-irony intended to elicit a laugh at my own expense.

But yes, I suppose there WAS just an eentsy bit of concern there that Yeats's highly informed and original mysticism might prompt one of you to trot out the tired old fifth-hand unoriginal and ignorant mysticism that enjoys such apparently inexhaustible popularity on this board (see "thou thee Spiritus Dominatus yawn snore" bullshit that you feel impelled to offer us for the 999th time). So my appeal to refrain from interpreting the poem as being about Cracky - and to interpret it instead to be a poem about a hot-looking, gold-digging camwhore who doesn't have a "mystical" bone in her body - was a "true word spoken in jest".