I HAVE NO TIME TO WASTE.

Ah, poor J-Z.  Beset again with something so unfair and complaining about how his "work" has been treated poorly and without just cause.  
 
Unfortunately,  this complaint is poorly written and often off topic.  
   
"How can l find a place inside my heart  
for hatred or a grudge against forked tongues"  
   
Why shouldn't you have a place in your heart for standing against people who speak falsely?  That's  what anyone with a sense of justice and what is right would have.  
   
And you haven't shown that you've been addressed by anyone who has  spoken lies about you or your work.  
   
https://grammarist.com/idiom/speak-with-a-forked-tongue/#:~:text=To%20speak%20with%20a%20forked,as%20calling%20someone%20a%20liar.  
   
"and all my thoughts are with my serious pen,  
which tries to reach the goal that deserves more?"  
   
Leaving aside the bump in rhythm here (which TRIES to REACH the GOAL that deSERVES MORE), this line raises --but leaves unanswered -- the questions of what "the goal" (deixis) and this "more" you speak of is.  

And wouldn't what you are trying to say here make better sense if you had written:  

"How can l find a place inside my heart  
for hatred or a grudge against forked tongues"
WHEN all my thoughts are with my serious pen ..."?
  
"I try to know the secrets of the world  
as l love lots of people who owned me."  
   
Given the import of "as"  (= since) what you end up saying here is that the reason for your trying to know the secrets of this world is that you love a number of people to whom you were once enslaved?  Surely that's a non sequitur.  
   
"Life is great torture when they are not near.  
Can we meet once more where life has no end?"  
   
How is what you say here related to what you say your theme is?  
   
"Some people who have none but wasting time"  
   
Did you mean to write "some people who have **nothing to do**  but waste time?   The syntax of your line makes you say that some people possess nothing but time that waists them". And did you mean their time or someone else's?  
   
"want me to think about what has no place  
to take a second of my quite full time  
to write about what life has left to them."  
   
Besides  the infelicity of rhyming "time" with "time" , these lines are poor because they do not actually say what you are trying to say -- i.e., some people want me to think about what would, if thought,  be a worthless expenditure  of even a second of my precious time.  
   
And who are these people?  Would your thinking about, let alone actually responding to, what it is they have asked you  to think about **really** be a waste of your time.  Is what they ask you to do unreasonable or, more importantly, unwarranted?    
   
And do they really want you to write about what life has left to **them **-- which is what, BTW?

if I’m to get into my heavened home  
I have no time to waste with trivialities.  
 
I wonder then:  should I release myself  
from all the effort that  I  spend in fostering  
in (lumpy) verse,  
and  holding on  
to,  my pretense  
that I am poet to all poets  
especially those whom I decree  
(because they' are the ones who give  
me words of praise)  
have got some taste?  
 
The answer’s yes.  
 
For spending precious moments better used  
In doing  good  
 
to pose myself , as is my wont,  
alike in art and skill  
shown by the greatest of the poem makers  
since Shakespeare  
and to complain about  
how critics of my “work” are blind  
to ev’ry bit of genius that I show  
in all that I indite upon a  page  
and how they do not see  
that I’m,    
in my pronouncements on the workings of the world  
and what it is that truly leads  
to human happiness,  
an undisputed sage  
 
won’t  get me near or through  
as good deeds do  
the pearly gates.  
 
In fact my braggadocio  
and all the off point, spiteful insults that I write against those who  
i claim (preposterously)  
are motivated by their "grudge"  
will have St. Peter send me  
with great haste  
for evermore upon my death  
Into the fiery realms below.

I am not going to criticize all the poem, but l'll mention a few lines at the beginning, which l think should be corrected.
"...should l release myself
from all the effort that l spend in fostering
in [lumpy] verse."
1-spend in + time, so it should be SPEND ON
2- Fostering is transitive, it should be followed by a noun without IN.

I am not going to criticize all the poem, but l'll mention a few lines at the beginning, which l think should be corrected.  
"...should l release myself  
from all the effort that l spend in fostering  
in [lumpy] verse."  
1-spend in + time, so it should be SPEND ON  
 
Once again,  you show yourself unable to comprehend what I actually wrote  and instead, exhibiting your penchant for putting words in my mouth.  
 
What I wrote is "should I release myself from all the EFFORT that I spend in fostering ...  
 
But I'm now leaning toward "should I release myself from all the effort I expend in fostering ... ".  
 
"2- Fostering is transitive, it should be followed by a noun without IN."  
 
It IS followed by a direct object, namely "my pretense"  And where oh were does the preposition "in" appear in anything that follows "fostering"?  
 
Again, I have to wonder if you need glasses.   You show yourself incapable of quoting me correctly.  
 
And more importantly, I wonder if you'll ever be man enough to do what I asked you to do before I wrote the piece you seem to think I asked you to criticize, namely, to  **demonstrate**  through well reasoned and thoughtful argument  that my remarks about YOUR piece above (as well as the ones that I made about your "The Man Who defeated Death") are groundless and off the mark.  
 
Cue the ad hominems and red herrings.

I suppose you think that you have answered me. You are so far from doing so. Just go back to your, what is supposed by you to be a poem, and you will be convinced. BTW, I am not going to expose more of your mistakes. I leave this task to you.

And right on cue!

" Just go back to your, what is supposed by you to be a poem ..."

Leaving aside the question of why you have placed a comma between "your" and "what", not to mention that you should have written  Just go back to  what is supposed by you to be a poem" to avoid the solecism that your directive contains,   I wonder if you'd be kind enough to say why my piece is not a poem.  It has the elements that you have often declared a writing must have -- rhythm, rhyme, ideas --  to be poetry.

So many truths to meditate on; truth to power. Hugs and peace, oral

Would you do us all a favor and name the truths that in your eyes this piece from J-Z  propounds and that you find as worth meditating upon?

And isn't it the case that if  there are many truths in this piece,  it is not cohesive and does not stick to the topic its title says it is going to deal with?

Dear Oralizer,
Thank you very much for your very appreciated comment. I understand very well what you mean. Don't listen to the intruder. J Z

I think it's a beautiful poem, full of longing, hope and strong faith.

Thank you very much, Lozzamus, for your very kind encouragement, which l highly appreciate.

It seems to me that writing things that you call poetry
but whose true comprehensibility,
not to mention its cohesiveness
and use of vivid imagery
Is nowhere to be seen

(despite what any of your little coterie
 of dilettantish sycophants  
have said about your wording skill,
but who, in speaking of the beauty of your piece,
have shown themselves  
to  have no sense of what it is that makes for art)

Is sensibly the only thing that truly is
a waste of time,  
not just for you,
but for your more enlightened would-be readers, too.

So do us all a favor now.  
Give up your sense, your arrogant pretense,
that’ you’ve no need for hearing  
how to write
since you’re convinced that all you post To DUP
 is verily god’s gift to verse,
and go and read some worthwhile  books**  
on  how to make your compositions swell
with lines eschewing all your tendencies
 for boring pulpit pedantry,
 but serve instead to cause a reader to become
swept up in ecstasy.  

Cue the unevidenced and petulant response that this isn’t poetry.

**
Frances Mayes--The Discovery of Poetry: A Field Guide to Reading and Writing Poems
Steve Kowit--In the Palm of Your Hand: The Poet's Portable Workshop
Ted Kooser --The Poetry Home Repair Manual: Practical Advice for Beginning Poets
Kim Addonizio -- Ordinary Genius: A Guide for the Poet Within
Mary Oliver--A Poetry Handbook
Sage Cohen -- Writing the Life Poetic: An Invitation to Read & Write Poetry
Kim Adonnizio and Dorianne Laux--The Poet's Companion: A Guide to the Pleasures of Writing Poetry
Mark Doty -- The Art of Description: World into Word
Robert Pinsky--The Sounds of Poetry
Mary Oliver -- Rules for the Dance: A Handbook for Writing and Reading Metrical Verse
Stephen Fry -- The Ode Less Travelled: Unlocking the Poet Within
William Baer -- Writing Metrical Poetry: Contemporary Lessons for Mastering Traditional Forms
John Hollander -- Rhyme's Reason: A Guide to English Verse
Lewis Turco -- The Book of Forms, Third Edition
Stephen Burt -- The Poem Is You: 60 Contemporary American Poems and How To Read Them

Why don't you practice this piece of advice on yourself, poet.

Right on cue with the tu quoque!

In any case, please point out where  I have ever said that I have no need to learn anything more about how to write  poetry or implied that I am incapable of writing it poorly.

And man up for once and tell me,  using **your stated criteria ** of what a writing has to have in order to be not only poetry, but good poetry,  why my piece is neither of these two things, as you implied it is.

Are you saying that its lines have no set or regular rhythm?

Are you saying that it doesn't display ideas?

Are you saying that I have not used rhyme?

Are you saying that there's no reason to think that I have ever followed the advice in any of the books I listed on how to write poetry, let alone read what they have to say on this matter?

Good poetry is not only in form, but it should have a good form and a good meaning. Where is the good meaning in your poetry? Sorry to say so.

Who are you to say that there is no meaning, let alone a good one (whatever that is), in what I write?

I note too that if you say there isn't one there, then you are insulting the respondents to my submissions who have stated that my pieces possess significance and meaning as among those who have  no perspicacity.

But then again, you never saw a belt upon those who find fault with the way you write and who think that you present question begging ideas awkwardly that you didn't want to hit below.

Who am l to say so? You've asked me and l give you my opinion on your poetry.

give you??    
 
opinion in???  
 
But why should I or anyone accept your opinion as valid, let alone as well informed, if it is never argued for or buttressed with evidence?  
   
https://theconversation.com/no-youre-not-entitled-to-your-opinion-9978  
 
And why don't you realize that any meaning that a poem has is obliterated if  the ideas that one is trying to express within it are set out  with and in dull and misused language,  grammar gaffes,  solecisms, deixis,  and question begging, factually suspicious claims?

Yes, it should be  GIVE YOU. Do you have another opinion?

"you [have] askED and I GAVE  you...".   But, as usual,  you are avoiding  speaking to the more important points I raised about your opinion.

Why do you give false pretensions when you are caught, and immediately change the subject? Is this your manliness?
You mean to say that l should have written: YOU HAVE ASKED, AND I GAVE YOU.

"Why do you give false pretensions when you are caught, and immediately change the subject? "

1.  Is there such a thing as a  "true pretension"?

2.  what "pretension" did I give and why was it false?

3.  What was I caught doing?

4.  What subject did I  "immediately" change and what did I "immediately" change the subject to?

In any case,  you still haven't answered my question about why I or anyone should accept your opinion of my submissions as valid or worth considering since you have never demonstrated through argument or evidence that they are such.

Look at the comment before your last one and answer it.

I will answer it after you answer my question about why anyone should accept your opinion on what I write as valid -- a question that I asked you **before** you made the comment you are referring to.