
( , Fri 8 Jan 2021, 17:36, Reply)

Hitler executed a lot of people. Trump didn’t execute any. As despicable as Trump is, and as egregious as his presidency has been, he’s nothing whatsoever like Hitler.
It seems people think that a bit of exaggeration and hyperbole is inconsequential. I think it undermines the very valid case against him. People sympathetic to Trump, or on the fence, hear the batshit comparison, know what bullshit it is, and it makes them more supportive of him. Still, he’s gone in a fortnight, and the hysteria will find something else to focus on.
( , Fri 8 Jan 2021, 19:13, Reply)

Substitute with another manipulative demagogic leader who doesn't care about the consequences of his actions.
No, Trump hasn't directly had innocent people put in concentration camps or shot; the resistance to SARS Cov-2 precautions has killed more people than the Vietnam war.
( , Fri 8 Jan 2021, 20:06, Reply)

In which we learn that you don't consider the Vietnamese to be people.
( , Fri 8 Jan 2021, 21:10, Reply)

There’s a couplet from Sweet and Tender Hooligan that pops into my head a lot these days.
( , Fri 8 Jan 2021, 21:30, Reply)

putting aside, of course, your casual yet entirely predictable sociopathy of not valuing elderly lives
( , Sat 9 Jan 2021, 4:53, Reply)

A couplet is simply a pair of sequential lines in verse. They do not have to rhyme. Thats why we talk about rhyming couplets, to distinguish them from couplets that don’t rhyme.
You falsely claim I made an error of verse analysis, and then inexplicably ascribe this to poor grammatical ability. You are so ignorant and stupid.
( , Sat 9 Jan 2021, 11:29, Reply)

a couplet: a pair of successive lines of verse, rhyming and of the same length, typically with the same meter
Morrisey:
A poor woman, strangled in her very own bed as she read
But that's okay, 'cause she was old
And she would have died anyway
So three lines, not equal length, with differing meters, with a more complex internal rhyming structure.
yep, not a couplet. you could have simply said "verse", but you're pretentious yet ironically hilariously poor at grammar
Here's an example of actual rhyming couplets:
there once was a man called prufock
who most agreed was a bit of a cock,
instead of making others laugh,
he would post from the telegraph,
in lexicology and grammar
he had a supercilious manner
though always managed to be wrong
yet arguments he would prolong,
bitter tory with unmerited conceit,
you can always do a thread delete
( , Sat 9 Jan 2021, 21:57, Reply)

( , Sun 10 Jan 2021, 13:56, Reply)

Here are the very first and second sentences from the Wikipedia article on couplets: "A couplet is a pair of successive lines of metre in poetry. A couplet usually consists of two successive lines that rhyme and have the same metre."
You should pay particular attention to the adverb that is the third word of the second sentence there. Clue: it's 'usually'.
Failing that, read the seventh and eighth sentence of the article here: "While couplets traditionally rhyme, not all do. Poems may use white space to mark out couplets if they do not rhyme."
You quote three lines, and argue there isn't a couplet, because you've quoted three lines. The second and third lines of the three lines you quoted, that contain the cause, and the the hypothetical effect, make the couplet.
This just like your Independent SAGE and SAGE are one and the same thing lie the other day. You really don't what you're talking about.
I'm looking forward to your next riposte defending your fallacies, what could go wrong arguing about poetry with someone who calls himself Prufrock?
( , Sat 9 Jan 2021, 22:43, Reply)

But I'm not a pretentious twat and hence
did you know my username is a literary reference?
serving to remind you plebeian devils,
that I got a B+ for my lit O-levels,
(if only the Lidl check-out chick, knew of my mastery of the poetic,
forsooth, she would not scorn me, for knocking over beans on aisle three!)
that my example in no way fits the definition,
will not limit my solecistic disquisition,
why, in wikipedia "usual" is perceptible,
and this of course means all else is acceptable,
and just to complete my bankrupt argument,
I'll claim I was quoting a contextless fragment,
not matched in length or meter but who cares,
at least now it looks like i'm using pairs,
of this prufock's ballad I'm sadly the bearer,
and his tragic incapacity to admit when in error,
what sociopathy drives this tesco-value Rimbaud?
why it's his fragile pathetic and talentless ego
( , Sun 10 Jan 2021, 4:13, Reply)

( , Sun 10 Jan 2021, 11:21, Reply)

hang on, was that a couplet? with your second line just being blank space (cue eerie music). if Morrisey's three line verses of unmatching meter or length are now couplets according to ee dummings (aka prufock), then even this reply is probably a couplet too. everything's a couplet according to where's waldo emerson. It's your doubling down on the stupid that's most funny
and not that I want to overburden that odd little mind of yours, but clauses with the modal "would have" already have a widely held descriptor for those that actually know and teach grammar. it's called "the conditional tense", and in this case it forms a conditional clause. Morrisey is not hypothesising an effect as you clumsily put it, he's describing a conditional: because old ∴ die soon. I say these things as you seem to lack many of the basic building blocks of grammar, and perhaps you want to work on those before you start tripping over poetical lexicology
( , Sun 10 Jan 2021, 13:52, Reply)

it's not that you're stupid, nor that you say stupid things, at least, not with anywhere near the regularity of prufock, though when you do its often some odd aspergers-like missing of what's obvious to others. it's mostly moderate, reasonable, inessential and uninsightful, like a trainspotter cornering you at some party to explain rail gauges. you can obviously articulate a cogent argument, but it's far more fun to spar with prufocks seething jealousy and hatred
( , Sun 10 Jan 2021, 15:08, Reply)

glad we kind of agree about something I didn't actually imply...
( , Sat 9 Jan 2021, 1:26, Reply)