BEAUTY AND TIME

Oh rose!
Whoever would suppose
that you’d take pride
in throwing things,
yes, even if it’s true (it’s not)
that this
is something you can do.

One wonders, too,
that persons who
admire you when your beauty’s seen
will never ever crave,
or take the time
to smell,  the “perfume” you give off
unless, until,  a breeze drifts past
the place
that you are rooted to.

Dear Baldwin,
Thank you very much for your great interest and help to me. I appreciate your great help very much. I hope you consider me a friend of yours.

What great help of mine have you taken into consideration, let alone applied, to the way you write?   Please specify -- as someone would do if truly a friend.

And may I remind you that friends actually speak directly to remarks and questions directed towards the way they write rather than avoiding doing so as you so often do, not to mention do not accuse their friends of lacking intelligence and/or imagination as you have me when I have noted with good reason that what you write is grammar gaffed,  filled with awkward and solecistic English, that it is often incomprehensible, that the claims you make are absurd,  and that you show yourself, especially when you write on matters biblical,  as someone who distorts texts and doesn't know what he talking about.

Some friend.

Cue the ad hominem response.

Don't ask me why, but simply, l consider you a friend. That's all.

"Don't ask me why, but simply l consider [sic but I simply consider] you a friend. That's all."

Then treat me like one or your profession is an empty one.

And I note how once again you avoided answering my question, let alone did not provide the s[specifics I asked you to provide.

If this is how you treat those you proclaim are your friends,  one has to wonder how you treat those you consider your enemies.

It is very difficult to see that what you've written speaks clearly -- if at all -- to/about  the relationship between beauty and time.

Here's something that, I think, does it better.  If you disagree,  please **show** me how and why it doesn't.


I’ve come to see
that time’s epitome
is gluttony,
an arrowed force implacable
whose aim it is to ravage all
to entropy,
to wither youth to bodily infirmity
and then into the grave
and quickened beauty to its end
in haggarding.
Not even the almighty hand of god
can from it his creation save.
Dust to dust and then
oblivion its fate,
for time devours everything;
its appetite’s
insatiate.

Dear Baldwin,
SIMPLY: is an adverb of manner, and it can qualify the clause. In this case, it's placed at the beginning of the the clause. When it qualifies CONSIDER, it is placed before it. Here, l use it to qualify the clause, so l place it after BUT, and before the clause, I CONSIDER YOU A FRIEND. Please, don't give me references, l won't see them., but explain what you mean briefly.

Another dodge of my questions.

Some friend.

It's not a dodge, but let us solve the problem of SIMPLY first.

Of course it's a dodge since you could have gone on to answer the most important questions as well.  But instead, you focus on a minor and incidental point.

And the problem with placing the adverb before "I" rather than "consider" is that in doing so you end up saying "But completely or as much as possible/  Weakly; foolishly; stupidly  I consider you my friend".

Baldwin you are impossible.

Let's solve the problem of how you left out the comma of address before we talk about how and in what ways I am impossible.

And you are still dodging my questions.

Yes, l did use a comma later. I tell the truth. That's because you look for exaggerated details.

I meant when you wrote this:

"Baldwin you are impossible."

And if you are speaking of your line that addresses "fast time", you did not use A comma.  You used two.  And you placed one where it should not be in this line:

All beauty has a charm, we love a lot.  

As to your telling the truth -- with its implication that I don't ---  rubbish!

But at least you are true to form in not really being the friend to me you claim you are in not answering, as friends do when asked questions,  the questions I have put to you.

ALL BEAUTY HAS A CHARM, WE LOVE A LOT.
You are mistaken, Baldwin. Here the comma is necessary because the relative clause is Non-defining. Check your information.

So you are not saying that you have overflowing love for beauty's charm but instead are simply making a simple declaration that you when you love, you love bountifully?

And how is "we love a lot" a relative clause?  What indicates that it is?  

And why would a relative clause need to be spliced to a main clause with a comma?  Shouldn't it have a relative pronoun before it if it is to function as a relative clause, let alone to be seen as doing so?

And shouldn't you have written "we love IT [the charm that all beauty has] a  lot" if it's to be seen without a relative pronoun as a clause that's related to the main clause?  
 
And you are still being massively unfriendly.

1- All beauty has a charm, [WHICH] WE LOVE A LOT. Which: is omitted because it is objective. This is the relative clause. It's not a main clause.
Please, write about each point separately. I am not going to publish a newspaper.

Ah,  and now you are using misrepresentation to avoid answering questions (not to mention to play the "oh how I'm unfairly and unjustly put upon/pity me" card).  No one has asked you to publish a newspaper.  The questions you've been asked can be answered briefly.  

And who said that "which we love a lot" was a main clause?

You said so:
And why would a relative clause need to be spliced to a main clause with a comma?  Shouldn't it have a relative pronoun before it if it is to function as a relative clause, let alone to be seen as doing so?
But the relative pronoun,WHICH, is omitted because it is objective.