I'm from Cold Mountain, NC. It sounds either like the word 'mere' or the word 'fir'. That is, 'round hirr.

Why not? Eyes attract males for purposes of fertilization. Flowers attract bees for purposes of fertilization. If you don't believe me, ask yourself, what part of the flower actually produces seeds? Is that really even part of the flower? What's all the rest for?

Wisdom teeth are relics from times when people ate grass. Here in Jordan, where people actually do eat grass, most people retain their wisdom teeth and lose the rest. True story. Extra grass-chewing ability allows grass-eating humans to survive to fertility and reproduce. But that's nothing like the eye argument. PS: Note the spelling on argument. You've gone on too long with your vestigial 'e's, frankly.

Would you say that the purpose of your eyes is to produce children? Why?

1) To attract insects to pollinate them (not primarily to produce seeds,) but that's neither here nor there. Before you argue, the flower - that is, the colorful petaly part of the plant - is devised for bug attraction and fertilization. You can say that's a step in seed production, but then so are all of the plant's functions.
2) Pure prettiness.
3) To provide something to compare pretty girls with.
4) To give Jesus a better metaphor than "consider the coniferous trees of the field, they toil not."
5) To provide olden poets with rhymes for bower, hour, and power.
6) To make crowns and garlands out of.

I'm not even being silly yet. Seriously. At the very least, if flowers weren't pretty, comparable to beautiful women, and easily-rhymeable, you'd have written your poem about something else that was.

Woah, back up.

Dovina: If I disapproved as strongly / as I think you disapprove / I would rage.

zodiac: The amount you should think she disapproves is "pretty much, but not enough to necessitate raging."

Dovina: Disapproval does not necessitate rage. Some people rage at the slightest disapproval and some never rage. The two things are not closely related.

zodiac: That's not what we're talking about. We're talking about the amount the addressee of the poem disapproves, which is not strongly enough to necessitate raging. Otherwise the addressee would be raging.

Dovina: So?

zodiac: So you'd be raging in a situation that doesn't require raging from all people who experience it. Maybe you just like raging.

Dovina: So?

zodiac: Um, I dunno.

You've inspired me to imitate.

FIRST CHEESE (haiku) by zodiac

I thought my grilled-cheese
sandwich would contain a ten
dollar bill. It didn't.

This is how I read the poem:

I'm walking, then I see a crazy guy, but I'm not some kind of prejudiced who won't even make eye-contact with loonies, but if he asks for money he's a fucking wino, but maybe he isn't maybe he's just crazy, and maybe I'll sit and listen to all his wisdom cause I'm deep like that, and maybe give him money, but maybe I just don't have any on me.

Am I missing anything? Do you not see anything wrong with that?

UNDENIABLY CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM: Write this song over again about something completely different. Have a topic in mind before you start writing, rather than saying something like 'I think I'll write a song; what are some words people use in songs? Heart, apart, time, mine.' If you need help finding an angle on your new song, consider writing it from the perspective of a budgerigar.

Oops. I meant, yes I do see the point. The part about sunrises is, as far as I see it, the point of the poem. To recap:

Woman wakes, sees sunrise, thinks it'll stay, it doesn't, because she's silly. The fault isn't the sunrise's, nor even necessarily the human condition's, it's just the woman's. Are we agreed to this point? Okay, yes, I think it's not only trite, but a little dumb. I also think whatever you imagine you've learned, you still blame the sunrise.

Do you agree that if some amount of disapproval necessitates raging, then any person who experiences it will rage, regardless of his or her self-control? And yes, I'm aware this conversation's gone on way too far to just be getting to this point.

If I had nothing to judge a person's personality by except this poem, and were forced at gunpoint to say whether I thought this person were insane or not, I'd say insane. Definitely insane.

Really? Amazon.com returns 213 results, including versions by Rod Stewart, Dave Brubeck, Willie Nelson, and a man named Hoagy Carmichael.

No. The amount that she disapproves doesn't appear to necessitate raging. At least, not if you assume she isn't raging. Maybe you don't, but then the poem just kind of evaporates, doesn't it?