HONOUR IS NOT ENDOWED.

So, leaving aside the fact that "endow" is a transitive verb and needs an object  (https://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/endow),  I wonder if you realize that you are likely to be taken as claiming that honour does not have a big penis or large breasts (which is the connotation of saying that someone is not endowed -- https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=endowed)?

And does not the line "Some would discuss to prove their points"   need a notice of **what it is** that "some" are inclined to discuss, not to mention of what the point is that "some" want "to prove" if readers are to have some grasp of what it is you are asserting and arguing against?

Moreover, this line "whose insight lives eternal plan?" is solecistic in that it needs an article before plan (an? the?) to be syntactically correct.

Poor writing.   And it's also all over the place metrically.

Do you know the rhythm, Baldwin?

 
Given the way your words are generally pronounced, these lines scan as:  
   
The subLIME MAN does NOT inTEND    
to apPEAR that HE is so GRAND.    
   
EXploits AREN'T aCHIEVED [?] to be SHOWN   [BTW exploits are not things achieved]    
They're RELished WHEN their efFECTS REIGN.  

NEVer does man CARE for reSPECT  
   
If you disagree,  please show me where the stresses lie.  
   
And my comment on the mixed meter of your piece is a remark of secondary importance.  Thanks for dodging speaking to the more important ones  
   
This would be poor writing even if your meter was consistent.

Did you answer my question?

Yes, I did by showing you what the (disjointed) "rhythm" of a number of your lines is when one pronounces the words in them as they are ordinarily pronounced.

Shall I take it that you are (typically) not going to answer (by speaking specifically to) my questions and instead dodge them?  

Are you hiding the fact that you are not well endowed?

I advise you to read to some of the greatest poets and see if their rhythms are more consistent than mine. Your poetry, for me, is the writings of someone who knows just the IAMBIC RHYTHM, but very badly. He uses it to express some very poor ideas, which are very far from being poetry. I feel surprised how you dare to criticize my poetry, which is rhythmic and has poetic ideas.

Another dodge of my questions!

And another unproven assertion about my knowledge of meter (remember how I showed you that I could write consistently trochaic lines).  Please point out to me where and how I write "very badly" when it comes to using iambic meter.  And please tell me why writing only in iambic (if indeed that's what I "only" do) is a bad thing.

And leaving aside your admission above that your "rhythms"  ARE inconsistent, please name the particular "greatest poets" whose rhythms are even more inconsistent than yours are.

BTW,  what are "poetic ideas"?  How do they differ from any other type of ideas?

I don't remember anything, but that who knew how to write trochaic poems in the past can write them now. Show us your muscles.
It is not a bad thing to write in iambic, but it is to correct to others, and ask them to write perfect rhythms, while the greatest poets had some flaws in rhythms [this is normal in poetry], and it is bad to correct to others [ who are better than you] when you know very little about poetry. Those who know about poetry can write easily in the four main rhythms.  
I would mention Wordsworth, Coleridge, Keats, Lord Byron, ...etc. Here, l don't claim that they were more inconsistent than lam, but they had their own rhythmic mistakes.
I leave the last item to discuss it later with you.

"Those who knows about poetry ..."

Is this well written English?

Please give me some examples from Wordsworth and Keats where they made rhythmic mistakes.

And you are still dodging speaking directly to the remarks I made about this submission of yours.

Don't you dodge writing a trochaic poem?  
Please, Baldwin, don't be angry. Do we speak TO the remarks or ON them?

Given that you are being asked to answer certain questions about the cogency and grammar of what you've written, and/or to show through evidenced argument exactly how my remarks about the poor way that you've written are  not valid (if you think they are not valid) about what you've written, it's "speak to".

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/speak_to

I haven't dodged any such thing -- as you'd see if you use the search function here to find where I  wrote a piece in trochaic hexameter in response to a previous claim of yours that I didn't have the talent to do so.

The only one who is dodging things here is you.   And in any case,  why should I  comply with your request when you refuse to comply with the ones I made at the beginning of this thread?   It appears you don't have the muscles to do so.

You might also wish to note that Back on Dec. 6th I asked you not only if you have the ability and talent to write in dactylic hexameter or in the form that Dante did or in the style of Petrarch or of Sappho, but also if you do not, does that mean you are lacking in poetic skill?

I've also asked you to produce a love poem that emulates the style, and that has the same grace and evocative power,  that one finds in the love poetry of such "greats" as Wyatt or Yeats or Keats.  

But quite unlike me, who produced what you asked me for to show that I was not a one-trick pony when it comes to "rhythm",  you have never shown that you have the poetic skills that you so often claim here that you have.

Why is that?  Don't you have the muscle to do so?

1-...as you'd see if you USE the search function here... . Is this correct Baldwin? If you could write trochaic poetry easily, you would write a trochaic poem here instead of these long writings. Not only TROCHAIC, BUT ALSO HEXAMETER. What a surprise!

You are being a weasel.  The issue here is not whether **I** can easily write a piece set out in consistent trochaic meter (I have no idea what a  "trochaic poem" is),  let alone in trochaic hexameter,  but (1) whether your submission is written well and (2) if you can do what you've consistently dodged doing -- i.e., counter my remarks about how and why your piece is poorly written.   If anything would be surprising here, it would be that you'd stop dodging what you've been asked to do and that you'd give up doing what you typically do when pressed about whether your "work" is, namely, shifting the issue to be discussed to something other than what it should be.