NONE CAN BE SAVED AGAIN.

This is poorly written at a number of points.

If the animal you are speaking to is an old ram,  why are you addressing it as a little lamb?

And isn't true that you are unable to behave or act in any way.  You are engaged in the act of speaking, aren't you?

And if what you really meant to say that there was nothing you could do to prevent your ram from dying, you chosen a very poor way to do so.

Finally,  what you do in your closing lines is not only to raise the question of where the  "there"  that you say you will meet your ram in again after it has died is, and engaged in deixis, but to make an absurd assertion  that the rams go to heaven when they die.

Sorry,  but to put it bluntly,  this is crap.   And it hardly shows that "none  can be saved again", let alone makes clear  what it is that none can be saved again from.

He was talking about holding something dear. Giving it a home. It was all about love. The words are there to guide you but the true meaning is within the emotions. We all have lost something we care about. My dog died not too long ago and he was the only friend I had. Don't hate on people's poetry because you don't understand it. Try to adjust to them because there is so much more than what is at the surface.

Here is, I think,  something that gets at, in a much better way,   what I think you were trying to say.  If you think otherwise,  please **demonstrate** how and why it does not do so, remembering that assertion that it doesn't do so is not a demonstration that it doesn't.

What did you think
when you, when young,
and laid, as young lambs often were
within Jerusalem
upon the Temple's altar, saw
the priests’ sharp knives
directed at your throat
was their intent to do?

To play some ticklish games
upon your wool
and over which they all
eventually could laugh?

Or was it then
to spill your blood,
to slash your life away?

Let’s thank our god
that I was able then to rescue you
from sacrificial death
and raise you up in frolicked
circumstance
to be a hearty ram

But now your years
have come to take their toll
and years from all things do
and I must say goodby to you.

I wish that I could bar death
from our door.

But no, I’m damned
to feel the weighted truth
that, hard determined as I am
to set myself against and stay
death’s claim upon your flesh,
there’s nothing I can do.

Perhaps there is an afterlife
we’ll share.
If so, I hope, with heaven’s grace,
I’ll see you there.

I get that. But you still see the point don't you. We all can make things sound better. It is a lot harder to speak from the heart. I agree with you but also think we all have our own way of viewing it. No one is completely the same. Just my thoughts. You could have helped him fulfill his emotional journey. We don't need criticism as much as we need simple words of encouragement filled with how it made you feel. That is the truth I see in poetry.

I am addressing the ram as when l brought it as it was a lamb. Haven't you read that? I don't think it's very polite to use CRAP. Or you always prefer to use this kind of language.

Yes,  I read it.  But the way you state this is that it's still a fact that your ram is a lamb.  It would have been better if you has said "I bought you when you were a cute lamb and they ...".

And did you mean to write "or DO you always prefer ...?"

In any case, do you think that my other notes about your piece are off the mark. If so,  are you going to **demonstrate**  how and why they are?  Or will you do what you seemingly always do -- just assert that they are?

Much ado about nothing!

I see!  You are admitting that your piece is worthless.  Thank you!

No, l want to show you that your criticism is completely worthless. Which one do you think is closer to the reality l've meant. Can you understand for once? Or perhaps, you are still angry as you don't know GHOSTY is wrong and you can't admit it after looking it up in good dictionaries.

But you haven't **shown** that it is.  All you've done is to declare that it is.  

You also haven't provided any evidence that "ghosty" -- meaning a spirit plane--  is wrong, let alone that it is not (or can't be regarded as) a perfectly good construction.

You like talking much.

And you like dodging requests that you put your money where your mouth is and to stop posting red herrings in response to posts that show that you haven't done what you say you've done and don't know what you are talking about.

You think yourself that you are a professor, and you yourself know your reality. I am very sorry to say so.

Another dodge.   What I think of myself has no bearing on whether what I say about your pieces is off the mark  -- something you continually have never shown despite claims on your part that you have.

And who  but myself would know my reality?

It's enough to remind you of GHOSTY.

Why?  You have (typically) not yet **shown** that there's anything wrong with it,  let alone that it's not a word and why  it's not a legitimate and acceptable construction if it is a neologism.  
 
And what is reminding me of "ghosty"  enough **of**, since the questions I asked of you were whether my piece did not contain the elements you have declared are essential for a writing to be good poetry,  and especially since the issue is whether **you** can -- or ever will -- actually **show** that my comments  about your piece are off the mark and unwarranted, not whether or not I write well.  
 
Sorry,  but your remark is another in a long string of  red herrings.

Dear Baldwin,
Because some adjectives are formed by: noun + ly : adjective, and ghostly, weekly, monthly are examples. Please when you make a mistake , admit it.
I am infatuated by old, English, rhythmic poetry and my poetry is in the same style. I consider what you write is mere ideas that has the iambic rhythm, but doesn't have the regularity of lines that gives poetry its great beauty. Try to understand me please. I don't want to upset you, but your writing is not poetry to me. Why don't you understand me. I told you that before.

The call to admit one's linguistic wrongs is rich coming from you, i.e., a writer  who has so often striven hard to justify his solecisms, grammar gaffes, and awkward syntax.    

Moreover,  adjectives are also formed by adding -y especially  in order to note that something is “characterized by or inclined to” the substance or action of the word or stem to which the suffix is attached: (windy, juicy; grouchy; dreamy).  
 
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/-y  
   
 And this my was my intention in writing "ghosty" and avoiding "ghostly".    
   
When not used to form  adverbs from adjectives (gladly; gradually; secondly) or when not attached to certain nouns denoting units of time and therefore conveying the idea of "every", but to adjectives,  -ly  means "like".  
   
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/ly?s=t  
   
Therefore it would have been inappropriate and misleading for me to have used "ghostly"  It would not have conveyed what I wanted to convey about the place I was speaking of..  
   
Sorry,  but once again you have shown that you don't know what you are talking about.  
   
And is it really true that the lines of a writing **have** to be regular in their measurement  for that writing to be poetry, let alone for the composition to be beautiful?  And here I thought that it was word choice, engaging and evocative expression, use of concrete  appeals to the senses,  fresh and startling imagery  euphony, and the absence of grammar gaffes,  syntactical mistakes, forced rhyme and rhythm,  and solecisms that was/is what contributes to that.  
   
And once again,   leaving aside the question of whether anything you have posted here **is** "beautiful" (not to mention  memorable or has any capacity to make a reader see something with his/her eyes shut as beautiful poetry does) I have no idea why anyone should take whether or not something is poetry is whether it's poetry **to you**.    
   
In any case,  I'm wondering if you will now answer the yes or no questions I asked you above about my piece about a ram.   Here they are again:  
   
1.  Does it contain "rhythm", yes or no?  
   
2.  Did I have to engage in ellipsis in order to maintain the rhythm of a line, yes or no?  
   
3.  Is the meter off anywhere,  yes or no?  
   
4.  Do the places, if any,  where the meter **is** off,  not conform to the rules concerning what is and what is not acceptable metric substitution, yes or no?  
   
5.  Does the piece contain rhymes, yes or no?  
   
6.  Are any of the rhymes which appear here forced, yes or no?  
   
7.  In getting my lines to rhyme, do I end a line with a word that I've already used at the end of a previous line, yes or no?  
   
8.  Have I made any mistakes of grammar, yes or no?  
   
9.  Have I misused words that appear in my lines -- i.e., misunderstood what a word means, yes or no.  
   
10.  Are any of the expressions I use in my lines incomprehensible, yes, or no?  
 
11.  Is the piece just a recitation of ideas  or is it grounded in a depiction of a concrete event, yes or no?  
 

This was beautiful. One mistake you see in a poem shouldn't take away from the actual point. We are our own worst enemies. We are all the same but sometimes we forget that even similarities have their differences.

**What** was beautiful?

Dear CP,
You are a very dear friend, and your opinion is very sound.

Enjoyed this

I hate poetry elitists. Structure, classics, and grammatical correctness... Blah blah blah. I write for personal reasons and I can respect a raw piece of writing. It has character.

That being said... What I got from this is a love gone wrong. Someone who enjoys getting to know people and unwittingly tries to "fix" or "save" them... Intentions mostly pure but a bit careless in the sense that they're only loving for the moment and the excitement. The bond might become meaningful and deep, but since the foundation was shaky... What goes up must come down. And in my case it's usually an act of self sabotage because I should have really been working on me not treating people like chemistry experiments 🤣

But I'm a sucker for whatever inspires an interesting piece of writing.. such as this. Great piece. Unique concept.

And also the key to CONSTRUCTIVE criticism is acknowledging strong points as well as weak. Otherwise you're just busting someone else's balls for your own amusement. JS ... There's always room for improvement

Very dear HBP,
Thank you very much for your great comments. I hope you will read my present poetry and keep always in touch. JZ