Hamlet's father is the true cause of the death of the royal family. His exceptionally unscrupulous appearance to Hamlet, and his subsequent conversation, if you can call it that, have an immediate and very drastic effect on Hamlet's mental well-being, which is then the cause of the unfortunate and untimely ends of each of the court members. Hamlet acts rashly and impulsively when he talks with Gertrude and "accidentally" kills Polonius. This death, along with his uncouth interactions with Ophilia, invoke a madness upon her that leads to her drowning, an end that seems to have come to her no more maliciously than the "flowers" she hands to her brother in an earlier scene. The death of Ophilia and Polonius couples together to be more than enough to send Laertes into a fit of rage, which leads him to conspire with Claudius against Hamlet, a plot which directly leads to the deaths of Hamlet, Claudius, Gertrude, and Laertes himself. All of this is to ignore the bit about Rosencratz and Guildenstern, sent to die in an act of malificience which gives Hamlet a strange twist as a cold and cruel character.
First off, Shakespeare makes very clear the change in Hamlet, and he does show the full effect that the ghost has had upon Hamlet's fragile psyche. In Act 1, Scene 4, Hamlet is waiting with Horatio, Marcellus, and Barnardo. Then, Hamlet experiences the little father-son talk in Act 1, Scene 5, a chat which occupies the whole of that scene. The interesting thing here, though, is that when Hamlet returns to Horatio, and Marcellus, his attitude towards them has suddenly very muched changed, but not in a positive way. He has become extremely paranoid. In Scene 4, Hamlet speaks a total of 67 lines, of which 14 are spent in telling the others that he will follow the ghost, while the rest is spent in idle banter (7) or gossip (26) or awed wonder (19). It is clear by both the quantity and quality of Hamlet's words that, at this point, he is a rather agreeable individual, all things considered, and he is not in any real way stand-offish. However, as soon as he has returned from the ghost, he spends 24 lines being very suspicious of his former companions, believing that they cannot be trusted with secrets. Out of a total of 66 lines after the ghostly confrontation, Hamlet spends 32 lines just making Horatio and Marcellus swear to never relate to anyone what they have seen and/or heard, even going so far as to ask them to swear 7 times, 4 of which he specifies "upon my sword", to which they agree 5 times and then cease to speak completely. The ghost also decides to throw in his six-pence by telling them to swear 4 times as well, and he becomes so persistant in his participation that his orders that the others swear seems to completely eclipse any chance they had of complying. This is a lot of numbers which at first may not seem to mean very much, but there are a few of these numbers which are especially significant: for example, I find it difficult to believe that it could be an accident that Hamlet's 67 lines of rational and reasonably friendly talk from beforehand compare so closely and contrast so directly with his 66 lines of paranoia and suspicion afterwards. Shakespeare is illustrating, in the very length of the lines, as well as the words, the change and deteroration in Hamlet's persona as a result of the confrontation. The one test which I elected not to do was to count syllables, to see how this would all affect the time the lines require to say, as a more accurate measure of how much time is given to which: the reasoning behind this choice was that I do not know the extent to which the text has been translated, and so cannot interprete Shakespeare by syllables he didn't necessarily write.
The effect of the visit does not end here, however. Not at all. Upon his return, he unleashes his new-found paranoia upon Ophilia, with harsh emotional consequences. She notices the deteroration of Hamlet's control over himself ("Oh, what a noble mind is here o'erthrown!..."; Act 3, Scene 1, line 163) - in essence, his sanity - and her observation of this is the door through which she later slips through herself to madness ("O, woe is me t' have seen what I have seen, see what I see!"; Act 3, Scene 1, line 175), and thusly to drowning. This is not the only instance of his acting out upon others. However, the others, which generally involve his interaction with actors, or Rosencratz and Guildenstern, are primarily insignificant, doing little more than sustaining the sense of instability - the anal retentive attitude towards the method of acting ("... it offends me to the soul to hear a... fellow tear a passion to tatters..."; Act 3, Scene 2, Line 9), or the self-distressed monologue ("O, what a rogue and peasant slave am I..."; Act 2, Scene 2, Line 577). His condition has grown more severe by the time we reach Act 3, Scene 4, wherein Hamlet confronts his mother and begins practically frothing at the mouth in his fervor and unhappiness towards her. His mental stability / rational baseness has gone to such a degree that in Act 3, Scene 4, Line 32, he can calmly ask if he's killed the king ("Nay, I know not. Is it the King?"), and then not give any real response of emotion once he finds that he has killed Polonius. His words become more and more enraged, more and more volatile, and it becomes less and less certain that he will make good on his resolution to do her no harm: that is, until line 117, when the ghost, as if he finally realized the true effect he's had upon Hamlet, shows up to tell his son right, and suddenly Hamlet becomes reasonably stable, once again. The overall effect of the entire thing is the same as it would be with cancer: caused by an abarrition (radiation), malignant and deadly to those who must deal with it, and curbed by an abarrition (as with kemotherapy). But here, we observe that the cancer has spread beyond Hamlet himself, so "cured" though he may be, the damage has already been done.
This much is made clear by the next arrival of Ophilia ("Where is the beautious Majsty of Denmark?"; Act 4, Scene 5, Line 26), who is at this point very much stark raving mad. She leaves, and Laertes enters ("Where is this king? -sirs, stand you all without"; Act 4, Scene 5, Line 122), already in a considerably bad temper which was caused by Hamlet's temporary insanity, courtesy of his father, which leads him to kill Laertes' father. However, it is not until Laertes encounters his deranged sister ("O heat, dry up my brains!..."; Act 4, Scene 5, Line 178), again, courtesy of Hamlet, courtesy of the ghost, that Laertes really loses it (Later explicitly illustrated in Act 5, Scene 1, line 262, where he jumps down into Ophilia's grave). It is enough to make Laertes succinctly drop his grudge against Claudius and take up a grudge against Hamlet, and in so doing sets out the plan that would end up with plenty of additional ghosts to keep Hamlets father company. Hamlet's plague, as it were, is brought to its end with Gertrude, the character who suffered it least despite her contact with it. However, her disobedience to Claudius over such a little thing as drinking ("I will, my lord; I pray you pardon me."; Act 5, Scene 2, line 318), shows that Hamlet did indeed have an effect upon her, and once again, it leads to her death ("The drink, the drink! I am poisoned."; Act 5, Scene 2, line 341).
Ultimately, all the death was caused by this domino effect, as started by the ghost himself. Had he not imposed himself upon Hamlet's life, or perhaps waited some time longer to go about doing so, all of this would have turned out very differently. Hamlet himself starts off seeing the ghost as a frightful thing, something which can mean no good to anyone. All of these are Hamlet from Act 1, Scene 2: "Tis very strange...(233) ...this troubles me...(237) Armed, say you?(240) What, looked he frowningly?(246)". Clearly, Hamlet is less overjoyed at this knews than he is shocked and fearful. Horatio sets the foreshadowing very well when he says that the ghost might "deprive your soverignty of reason and draw you into madness", or "what if it tempt you to the flood, my lord? Or to the dreadful summit of the cliff... and there assume some horrible form" (Act 1, Scene 4, Line 77). It ends up being that Horatio, the only one who really listened to his own advise here, is the only member of the court left alive at the end of the play.

Hamlet's father is the true cause of the death of the royal family. His exceptionally unscrupulous appearance to Hamlet, and his subsequent conversation, if you can call it that, have an immediate and very drastic effect on Hamlet's mental well-being, which is then the cause of the unfortunate and untimely ends of each of the court members. Hamlet acts rash and impulsively when he talks with Gertrude and "accidentally" kills Polonius - "accidentally", because the killing was not the accident, only that it was Polonius who was killed; this death, along with his uncouth interactions with Ophilia, invoke a madness upon her that leads to her drowning, an end that seems to have come to her no more maliciously than the "flowers" she hands to her brother in an earlier scene; the death of Ophilia and Polonius couple together to be more than enough to send Laertes into a flying fit of rage, which leads him to conspire with Claudius against Hamlet, a plot which directly leads to the deaths of Hamlet, Claudius, Gertrude, and Laertes himself; and all of this is to ignore the bit about Rosencratz and Guildenstern, whose method of ends are shrouded in the text (that they are dead is stated by the Ambassador, Act 5, Scene 2, Line 411): it seems that (Act 5, Scene 2) Hamlet was being sent somewhere that was of some amount of peril to him, but he somehow discovered this before he got there, and sent Rosencratz and Guildenstern a letter which, with both "official sign and seal of the king", directed them to the perilous location - an act of malificience which gives Hamlet a strange twist as a cold and cruel character.
First off, Shakespeare makes very clear the change in Hamlet, and he does show the full effect that the ghost has had upon Hamlet's fragile psyche. In Act 1, Scene 4, Hamlet is waiting with Horatio, Marcellus, and Barnardo. Then, Hamlet experiences the little father-son talk in Act 1, Scene 5, a chat which occupies the whole of that scene. The interesting thing here, though, is that when Hamlet returns to Horatio, and Marcellus, his attitude towards them has suddenly very muched changed, and not in a positive way. He has become extremely paranoid. In Scene 4, Hamlet speaks a total of 67 lines, of which 14 are spent in telling the others that he will follow the ghost, while the rest is spent in idle banter (7) or gossip (26) or awed wonder (19). It is clear by both the quantity and quality of Hamlet's words that, at this point, he is a rather agreeable individual, all things considered, and he is not in any real way stand-offish. However, as soon as he has returned from the ghost, he spends 24 lines being very suspicious of his former companions, believing that they cannot be trusted with secrets. Out of a total of 66 lines after the ghostly confrontation, Hamlet spends 32 lines just making Horatio and Marcellus swear to never relate to anyone what they have seen and/or heard, even going so far as to ask them to swear 7 times, 4 of which he specifies "upon my sword", to which they agree 5 times and then cease to speak completely. The ghost also decides to throw in his six-pence by telling them to swear 4 times as well, and he becomes so persistant in his participation that his orders that the others swear seems to completely eclipse any chance they had of complying. This is a lot of numbers which at first may not seem to mean very much, but there are a few of these numbers which are especially significant: for example, I find it difficult to believe that it could be an accident that Hamlet's 67 lines of rational and reasonably friendly talk from before compare so closely, and contrast so directly, with his 66 lines of paranoia and suspicion from after. Shakespeare is illustrating, in the very length of the lines, as well as the words, the change and deteroration in Hamlet's persona as a result of the confrontation. The one test which I elected not to do was to count syllables, to see how this would all affect the time the lines require to say, as a more accurate measure of how much time is given to which: the reasoning behind this choice was that I do not know the extent to which the text has been translated, and so cannot interprete Shakespeare by syllables he didn't necessarily write.
The effect of the visit does not end here, however. Not at all. Upon his return, he unleashes his new-found paranoia upon Ophilia, with harsh emotional consequences. She notices the deteroration of Hamlet's control over himself (Act 3, Scene 1, line 163) - in essence, his sanity - and her observation of this is the door through which she later slips through herself to madness (Act 3, Scene 1, line 175), and thusly to drowning. This is not the only instance of his acting out upon others. However, the others, which generally involve his interaction with actors, or Rosencratz and Guildenstern, are primarily insignificant, doing little more than sustaining the sense of instability - the anal retentive attitude towards the method of acting (Act 2, Scene 3, Line 9), or the self-distressed monologue (Act 2, Scene 2, Line 576). His condition has grown more severe by the time we reach (Act 3, Scene 4), wherein Hamlet confronts his mother, and begins practically frothing at the mouth in his fervor and unhappiness towards her. His mental stability / rational baseness has gone to such a degree that in Act 3, Scene 4, Line 32, he can calmly ask if he's killed the king, and then not give any real response of emotion once he finds that he has killed Polonius. His words become more and more enraged, more and more volatile, and it becomes less and less certain that he will make good on his resolution to do her no harm: that is, until line 117, when the ghost, as if he finally realized the true effect he's had upon Hamlet, shows up to tell his son right, and suddenly Hamlet becomes reasonably stable, once again. The overall effect of the entire thing is the same as it would be with cancer: caused by an abarrition (radiation), malignant and deadly to those who must deal with it, and curbed by an abarrition (as with kemotherapy). But here, we observe that the cancer has spread beyond Hamlet himself, so "cured" though he may be, the damage has already been done.
This much is made clear by the next arrival of Ophilia (Act 4, Scene 5, Line 26), who is at this point very much stark raving mad. She leaves, and Laertes enters (Act 4, Scene 5, Line 122), already in a considerable bad mood which was caused by Hamlet's temporary insanity, courtesy of his father, which lead him to kill Laertes' father. However, it is not until Laertes encounters his deranged sister (Act 4, Scene 5, Line 178), again, courtesy of Hamlet, courtesy of the ghost, that Laertes really loses it (Later explicitly illustrated in Act 5, Scene 1, line 262, where he jumps down into Ophilia's grave). Enough so that he would succinctly drop his grudge against Claudius and take up a grudge against Hamlet, and in doing so set out the plan that would end up with plenty of additional ghosts to keep Hamlets father company. Hamlet's plague, as it were, is brought to its end with Gertrude, the character who suffered it least despite her contact with it. However, her disobedience to Claudius over such a little thing as drinking (Act 5, Scene 2, line 318), shows that Hamlet did indeed have an effect upon her, and once again, it leads to her death (Act 5, Scene 2, line 341).
Ultimately, all the death was caused by this domino effect, as started by the ghost himself. Had he not imposed himself upon Hamlet's life, or perhaps waited some time longer to go about doing so, all of this would have turned out very differently.

Hamlet's father is the true cause of the death of the royal family. His exceptionally unscrupulous appearance to Hamlet, and his subsequent conversation, if you can call it that, have an immediate and very drastic effect on Hamlet's mental well-being, which is then the cause of the unfortunate and untimely ends of each of the court members. His rash and impulsive actions when he talks with Gertrude and "accidentally" killed Polonius - "accidentally", because the killing was not the accident, only that it was Polonius; this death, along with his uncouth interactions with Ophilia, invoke a madness upon her that leads to her drowning, an end that seems to have come to her no more maliciously than the "flowers" she hands to her brother in an earlier scene; the death of Ophilia and Polonius couple together to be more than enough to send Laertes into a flying fit of rage, which leads him to conspire with Claudius against Hamlet, a plot which directly leads to the deaths of Hamlet, Claudius, Gertrude, and Laertes himself; and all of this is to ignore the bit about Rosencratz and Guildenstern, whose method of ends are shrouded in the text (that they are dead is stated by the Ambassador, Act 5, Scene 2, Line 411): as far as my interpretation of it could glean (Act 5, Scene 2), Hamlet was being sent somewhere that was of some amount of peril to him, but he discovered this before he got there, and sent Rosencratz and Guildenstern a letter which, with both "official sign and seal of the king", directed them to the perilous location, an act of malificience which gives Hamlet a strange twist as a cold and cruel character.
In Act 1, Scene 4, Hamlet is waiting with Horatio, Marcellus, and Barnardo. Then, Hamlet experiences the little father-son talk in Act 1, Scene 5, a chat which occupies the whole of that scene. The interesting thing here, though, is that when Hamlet returns to Horatio, and Marcellus, his attitude towards them has suddenly very muched changed, and not in a positive way. He has become extremely paranoid. In Scene 4, Hamlet speaks a total of 67 lines, of which 14 are spent in telling the others that he will follow the ghost, while the rest is spent in idle banter (7) or gossip (26) or awed wonder (19). It is clear by both the quantity and quality of Hamlet's words that, at this point, he is a rather agreeable individual, all things considered, and he is not in any real way stand-offish. However, as soon as he has returned from the ghost, he spends 24 lines being very suspicious of his former companions, believing that they cannot be trusted with secrets. Out of a total of 66 lines after the ghostly confrontation, Hamlet spends 32 lines just making Horatio and Marcellus swear to never relate to anyone what they have seen and/or heard, even going so far as to ask them to swear 7 times, 4 of which he specifies "upon my sword", to which they agree 5 times and then cease to speak completely. The ghost also decides to throw in his six-pence by telling them to swear 4 times as well, and he becomes so persistant in his participation that his orders that the others swear seems to completely eclipse any chance they had of complying. This is a lot of numbers which at first may not seem to mean very much, but there are a few of these numbers which are especially significant: for example, I find it difficult to believe that it could be an accident that Hamlet's 67 lines of rational and reasonably friendly talk from before compare so closely, and contrast so directly, with his 66 lines of paranoia and suspicion from after. Shakespeare is illustrating, in the very length of the lines, as well as the words, the change and deteroration in Hamlet's persona as a result of the confrontation. The one test which I elected not to do was to count syllables, to see how this would all affect the time the lines require to say, as a more accurate measure of how much time is given to which: the reasoning behind this choice was that I do not know the extent to which the text has been translated, and so cannot interprete Shakespeare by syllables he didn't necessarily write.
The effect of the visit does not end here, however. Not at all. Upon his return, he unleashes his new-found paranoia upon Ophilia, with harsh emotional consequences. She notices the deteroration of Hamlet's control over himself (Act 3, Scene 1, line 163) - in essence, his sanity - and her observation of this is the door through which she later slips through herself to madness (Act 3, Scene 1, line 175), and thusly to drowning. This is not the only instance of his acting out upon others. However, the others, which generally involve his interaction with actors, or Rosencratz and Guildenstern, are primarily insignificant, doing little more than sustaining the sense of instability - the anal retentive attitude towards the method of acting (Act 2, Scene 3, Line 9), or the self-distressed monologue (Act 2, Scene 2, Line 576). His condition has grown more severe by the time we reach (Act 3, Scene 4), wherein Hamlet confronts his mother, and begins practically frothing at the mouth in his fervor and unhappiness towards her. His mental stability / rational baseness has gone to such a degree that in Act 3, Scene 4, Line 32, he can calmly ask if he's killed the king, and then not give any real response of emotion once he finds that he has killed Polonius. His words become more and more enraged, more and more volatile, and it becomes less and less certain that he will make good on his resolution to do her no harm: that is, until line 117, when the ghost, as if he finally realized the true effect he's had upon Hamlet, shows up to tell his son right, and suddenly Hamlet becomes reasonably stable, once again. The overall effect of the entire thing is the same as it would be with cancer: caused by an abarrition (radiation), malignant and deadly to those who must deal with it, and curbed by an abarrition (as with kemotherapy). But here, we observe that the cancer has spread beyond Hamlet himself, so "cured" though he may be, the damage has already been done.
This much is made clear by the next arrival of Ophilia (Act 4, Scene 5, Line 26), who is at this point very much stark raving mad. She leaves, and Laertes enters (Act 4, Scene 5, Line 122), already in a considerable bad mood which was caused by Hamlet's temporary insanity, courtesy of his father, which lead him to kill Laertes' father. However, it is not until Laertes encounters his deranged sister (Act 4, Scene 5, Line 178), again, courtesy of Hamlet, courtesy of the ghost, that Laertes really loses it (Later explicitly illustrated in Act 5, Scene 1, line 262, where he jumps down into Ophilia's grave). Enough so that he would succinctly drop his grudge against Claudius and take up a grudge against Hamlet, and in doing so set out the plan that would end up with plenty of additional ghosts to keep Hamlets father company. Hamlet's plague, as it were, is brought to its end with Gertrude, the character who suffered it least despite her contact with it. However, her disobedience to Claudius over such a little thing as drinking (Act 5, Scene 2, line 318), shows that Hamlet did indeed have an effect upon her, and once again, it leads to her death (Act 5, Scene 2, line 341).
Ultimately, all the death was caused by the domino effect, the original source of which is the ghost himself. Had he not required imposed himself upon Hamlet's life, or perhaps waited some time longer to go about doing so, all of this would have turned out very differently.

When you left me
the universe was emptied
and the stars fell out of the sky
and the moon bled away
and sun refused to rise
over the desolate country
and night descended on my days

At the start, I only felt empty
but then it grew and I began to doubt my self-worth
and it was then, as I picked up the pieces
that I realized that you had stolen away all my words
I could not speak
I could not express
the feeling screaming wretching tearing away at my chest
and as I struggle to stand under the weight of my afflictions
and I struggled to breathe in my sea of misery
...
to be continued

Exclusive Religion
One of the most influential elements of human history is religion. Time and time again, people have been raised up, torn down, driven out, and rounded up, all based strictly on their religion. It has been strongly tied to culture, and there has yet to be a nation without a religion; that would be a nation without a culture, a nation without a people. It isn’t likely that there ever will be such a nation, either. And yet, for all its impact on history, the world, and the people living in it, religion itself is a somewhat vague notion. After all, what is religion? Whatever it is, it must not be particularly restrictive, if only for the large numbers of drastically different religions throughout the world. But no matter how broad its definition, there must be some way to distinguish religion from all other parts of life.
Strictly speaking, religion is nothing more than a set of beliefs. To this degree, religion is a given, the safe assumption that no matter what somebody believes, they do believe in something. How could they function in such a world if they didn’t? But we are searching for a definition of religion that is exclusive, as there are clearly things in life that are not religion, and how could the definition be exclusive and all-encompassing at the same time? Something must be excluded. So the search here is really to find the criteria for religion. To this end, we can assume organized religion to be central, so the structure of religion is similarly important. Religion is a structured set of beliefs, but what’s more, it is one shared by others. Unfortunately, this is cult-inclusive.
Religion is a guiding sector of ones life, pushing towards certain goals governed by conscience, necessity, and charity. As a general rule of thumb, religions that are officially considered to be such exhibit a common push away from material desires and wealth and toward a heightened state of nobility, of enlightenment. Once again, these goals are shared by all members of the religion, which can be seen as something of a “safety in numbers” mentality, even in religions that stress personal development. Another portion of religion commonplace everywhere religion is “religion” is the belief in some higher truth, be it an entity, multiple entities, or a blanket state; each is a form of god, though the third is characterized by a distinct “lack of god”, though that by conceptual definition renders the heightened state of life or death as god. Most seem to support the concept of the soul, some entity in people that gives biology life. Few religions support the idea of ultimate perishability*, that is, that many believe in some sort of existence after death. Some interpret it through reincarnation, rebirth, some through an afterlife, and other interpretations are anybodies guess – I’ve heard some strange ones, the Mormon “become God and make a universe of your own” ranking among them.
So it would seem that religion, as we know it to be, is a shared set of structured beliefs revolving around the relationship between oneself and the universe, including a connection to a higher truth that is humanly incapable of being attained. But, really, how does that narrow it down? After all, everyone associates with the world around them, and that is the universe, as far as they’re concerned. Everyone automatically constructs a relationship between themselves and their surroundings, no matter what else they believe. Everybody who believes in their own existence believe in some plane above the one they currently inhabit, with the possible exception of those who don’t believe in their own existence, who have bigger fish to fry anyway. But even then, they believe in an existence somewhere, and that they then stem from that. Is this not religion? So the only thing that actually separates a person from themselves being a religion is that they are not written down as a religion is, into a hierarchy and structure. But even then, religion is only ever found in oneself, so there must its definition remain – an exclusive part of all of us.

*if it’s not a word, it should be one. (The computer contends that it isn’t a word but is, in fact, two words. But then again, it is Microsoft, so what does it know, anyway?)

I'm crying inside
as my soul pours out through cedar tinted eyes
....
and yes, there is more, but it's stilll developing, so you don't get to see it yet XP. But that's my favorite line. It's the single best embodiement of where I am right now of all the lyrics I've written.

Incomparable
For the longest time, people have been telling me that I can’t compare apples and oranges. Well, damned if I’m not going to try. I mean, how hard could it be? They have to have some thing in common. And yet I can see us – you and me both, dear reader – attending Virgil to the answer.
And indeed, the first layer of hell is the physical, the quintessential element integral to both entities, as necessary as existence itself. Both objects are tangible, real to all sense that I know how to use, and as such follow the rules of reality. Were on inclined to drop an apple and/or an orange from the top of a 140-stories tall building, one would find considerably less apple and/or orange in the apple and/or orange, and considerably more on the sidewalk. As physical objects that exist without exceptions, they exhibit a shape. The form of an orange, the simplicity of its spherical shape, easily trumps the complexity and irregularity of its competitor. Meanwhile, its monochromatic appearance is no match for the colorful spectrum yielded by apples. Both are fruit, both designed by nature to house seeds and produce their respective trees, a birthing place they hold in parallel.
Tied in the world of shadows and backlit parapet silhouettes, form follows function, and so the matter of utility must be accounted for, as well. Both can be made into a tasteful beverage, though the apple once again finds variety in its favor, this time in both production and delivery; orange juice tastes better cold, but does not benefit heat the way apple cider does. I’ve yet to hear of an “orange pie”, while apple remains a staple of the American home-cooked meal, even in a time when few home-cooked meals have an entrée of apple pie. “Bobbing for oranges” doesn’t quite have the same ring as it does with apples. Meanwhile, I’ve yet to find an apple that makes for good tea, while oranges are among the simpler flavors – chamomile, lemon, orange, raspberry, yet no apple. The rinds of an orange find use in considerably more recipes than apples, which tend to find their culinary calling restricted to dishes evincing it in name.
The texture of apples varies little, while an orange has varying degrees to its skin and texture. Seedless oranges can be grown, an idea that can only be mendaciously applied to apples. Oranges range in size, whilst applies arrive in a sort of “2 or 3 sizes fits all” arrangement. Apples range in flavor, whatever that means, whereas one orange is more or less enough to know the taste of an orange, assuming it isn’t a nectarine or some other cockamamie hybrid scheme like that. Both are grown domestically and in profitable rural agriculture, both may be found in an orchard, and both are more or less ready to eat straight from the tree, granted that one knows how to choose a ripe member, and layers of insecticide aren’t an issue.
It would seem the popular saying has unfairly estranged both parties, as I see no real lack of comparative aspects here. Makes you wonder about the other things those people say can’t be done.

music connects the performer to the audience
and all I want is just to give them something great
how many sleepless nights to conjure up importance
when I've no higher purpose than to entertain

I'm not crazy I'm ok and my mommy says I'm all right and I know she would never lie to me cause I'm her only baby so if someone ever tells me I'm not fine they're trying to trick me and I know to put them on my list of people out to get me.
(Yes, that is one line. It spans 4 full measures. Yes, I can sing it, but barely; I run out of breath aroung "put them on my list", so the last words sound sort of desperate, which gives a weird effect that I sorta like.)

Don't talk to me
cause strangers are bad people
If I don't know you then you must be evil
and evil that would meet me must be against me
Plotting viscious thoughts of violence
I don't like pain, it hurts when I'm bleeding
but nothing good could ever be this painful
so I think that it's the blood that's evil
And yet it's inside us all
a conspiracy, if ever I heard one!
but that means there is a cure
that your only bad cause your blood is!

I'm not crazy, I'm ok, but mommy says I'm getting out of hand and I should stop trying to help the people stuck with bad blood in them making them all evil even though they try not to be and I know that I can make it all better if they just let me.

But the bad ones are closer now.
They're drawing ever nearer to me.
I can feel them lurking all about;
bad intentions are burning
but I have my friends here, so I'm ok.
and though they may not move much, you should hear them talking
they use the most deliciously long words
"...expidentiary fallacies to appease the collective
intrinsic tastes of the masses as a whole.
Incindiary values take their precidence in heirarchy
as spontaneaous combustion runs amok."
They never go home, they just stay here at my house.
They don't ever really leave the basement.
They seem to like it here, now that I've helped them to be good.

I'm not crazy I'm ok but mommy says I've gone too far and I can't choose to help them rid their lives of evil that's inside them but I know that mommy means me well it's just her blood that hates me cause I know how to defeat it so mommy don't be afraid

Everything's quiet now nobody wants to talk.
My friends downstairs are all mad at me
and refuse to respond
I don't understand what did I do but save them from evil
But now there's someone new here
I talk to him sometimes
but our talks aren't as good as the ones my friends would have
he's really very bossy, he's often rude
and he rarely gives me reasons for what he tells me to do
but finally I realized that its my own blood that still haunts me
so I know how to fix this at last

so here we meet again
and I don't have to listen anymore
I can win, let go of my arm!
I will be rid of you
get out of my head
get out get out Get Out Get Out
GET OUT OF MY HEAD
Out of my head
out of my head
out of my...

Now I'm sleeping safe and sound and I'm so comfortable that I could stay like this forever and not care if I don't wake up cause I like it here its peaceful and so warm that I can't leave it and I'm all alone in here but life is so much better for it....

Life is a journey
and nobody is ever really alone
so many paths diverging
a moment shared before they go on

Love is a yearning
A desire to become who you really are
all the while learning
and by the end, you'll know how to start

To love is to know
an understanding bond between heart and mind and soul
To love is to live
for a life left without love isn't living
To love is to grow
be so much more than you ever were on your own
To love is to stand
to stand up for your right to stand together
To love is to fight
and destroy anything that comes between you
To love is to die
to die to yourself to fulfil the other

To love is to see
to see beauty and perfection in their faults
To love is to feel
apathy and love don't mix very well
To love is to breathe
the most comforting sound when there's no words left to say
To love is to hope
to not loose sight of tomorrow and its happiness
To love is to hold
to comfort and support and protect from the world
To love is to cry
to open up your souls completely to each other

To love is to be
to become more you than you ever were before
To love is to forgive
to let things go when they don't even matter anymore
To love is to concede
to give up room for them to live without you
To love is to yield
to let things by when it won't hurt
To love is to persist
to never give up no matter how hard things get
To love is to ignore
and pay no attention to unmeant words

To love is to grieve
to stay on through trials and tribulations
To love is to give
to give your everything for their happiness
To love is to recieve
to take care of what they've entrusted you with
To love is to build
to build upon each other to make something great
To love is to complete
to fulfill the other with whatever it takes
To love is to forget
to forget all the mistakes along the way

.....

same upcoming song, different part, and it's two parts sung, so it really does fit, it just overlaps a little.

Jimmy, get me a female.

To love
is to know
to live
and to grow
to stand
and to fight
and to die

to love
is to see
to feel
and to breathe
to hold
and to share
and to cry

to love
is to be
forgive
and concede
to yield
and persist
and ignore

to love
is to grieve
to give
and recieve
to build
and complete
and forget

....

upcoming song.