Please, for the love of God, stop cutting and pasting internet tidbits here. Not a single one of them has helped your case at all. Try... just TRY to understand: "he would call the wrath of God down upon them" is completely correct. The line in your poem, "Call upon the wrath of God on ye", is TOTALLY DIFFERENT. For one thing, the internet line has only one prepositional phrase, "down upon them"; yours has two, "upon", and "on ye," which combine to cause a kind of completely bumming reaction. THIS IS THE POINT WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO MAKE ALL WEEK. THIS IS MOSTLY WHAT'S WRONG WITH THE FUCKING POEM. For another thing, the internet quote has a subject, "he", which is doing the calling. Yours does not. No one knows who's doing the calling, or who is being called. THIS IS THE OTHER THING THAT'S MAINLY WRONG WITH YOUR POEM. ARE YOU THAT FUCKING DIM??!? SHEESH! GET A LIFE, BUDDY!!!!1!

Comparing your outstanding achievements in the field of buffoonery to Picasso is like walking into a restaurant, filling your keks, and saying "Just because it smells bad doesn't mean it tastes bad."

You're not answering richa's point, which is a decent one. Or your answering it in a singularly American fashion - something like the following conversation I recently heard between an American tourist and an Austrian: AUSTRIAN: Your smell is practically unbearable. AMERICAN: *Fart* If you're bent on overloading your poems with unsupportable self-righteous assertions, why don't you do what any writer with sense would do and just insert a character into the poem to speak the self-righteous lines? That way your poem's not self-righteous, you're just describing some guy who might or might not be self-righteous (cf. any of the dozens of unsupportable statements in any of richa's poems.) And while you're at it, why don't you try to not be so self-righteous? You're so proud of yourself and doubt-free in your poems it actually hurts.

INSIPID You're just a load.

'I call upon the name of God to witness my oath' so how can a name witness an outh? See if you take it literally it's stupid. And to take a poem literally and not for It's implied meaning is even more retarded. You guy's would look at a Picasso and say "That don't look anything like a woman."

Thank you.

You don't know shit about brogues.

Shockingly dim even for you, INTRANSIT. I fear all the moonshine you've been hauling in your 18-wheeler has been somehow seeping into your mindlobes.

If an egret is a bird and a heron is a bird, then an egret can be a heron, but is not necessarily a heron according to the proposition. Therefore, A can be B. Check "Philosophy for Dummies," I’m sure it will agree. As for "believe hopefully," I know it sounds silly to believe and hope at the same time, almost contradictory, like lying to instill trust, like telling his Alzheimer’s wife he’s going to the store, when he’s really going to meet a woman for a few hours of understanding and conversation to ease his mind and relieve his nerves from incessant nagging.

If: A is A and B is B, then A cannot be B. Therefore you cannot "believe hopefully".

All normal stretches of pentameter in a modern sonnet in english. C.F. John F. Nims.

Line 10 is tetrameter. Line 8 seems to have 6 beats. Several lines are iambic only on a stretch of the word. None of the above makes any difference to me.

Because it is tetrameter as opposed to the rough pentameter of the rest. I shortened it for the effect.

he says, sliding into my comment as if it were a fitted brogue.