MISTAKES DON'T SHOW THE CHARACTER.

Astute observation, JZ. Reminds me of those free of sin instructed to cast the first stone.

What's the acute observation made here,  and is it true to life?

And leaving aside the fact that freezing days are often sun filled and radiant with blue skies, what does the freezing day spoken of here  as "escaping" escape from?

Well, you've written poorly from the get go in not entitling your metrically challenged submission "mistakes don't show one's character" since your present title is deictic and raises the question "THE character of what or whom?".

And you also show yourself once more as lacking in knowledge in implying as you do that  no one has told "you" that mistakes are not an indication of who one truly is, since there IS somebody who HAS told us so,  and that's Aristotle.  

Another problematic claim here is your statement that " a trip is not a deer's right step."  What  you are claiming is hardly clear.  Even less clear is how this demonstrates your claim that "Mistakes do not show what [who?] you are;".

Equally problematic is your claim that "a well known breed" is something that a mare "has".  A particular mare may of a good stock, but it does not HAVE a breed.

Then there's your question whether an act that a man wrongfully commits can bring him a bad name.   Of course it can, even if he acted with what to him were the best of intentions.

In any case, where is there any sign of lyricism in this piece?  Why should anyone think that what you claim within it is true and that the way that you say what you say is in any way poetically memorable and evocative?.

The good a man does dies with him; the evil lives long after.
Shakespeare, paraphrased.
Yes, how does one distinguish the character from the exception, the flaw?
I like the meter--the substitutions tend to encourage closer readings--sometimes too slavishly following a meter can create predictability.
I think this poem is more about men than women--I don't know if I can explain how I arrive at that conclusion.
Enjoyed!

Will you please tell me what the meter of this piece is, what the nature of the substitutions are, where they can be found, and if they are the ones that are considered "acceptable"?  
 
To my eyes,  this piece is metrically ragged as hell (not to mention essentially prose in line breaks -- where are the concrete appeals to the senses, the eye opening imagery?).  But I'd be glad to be shown that I am wrong.

the PERson THAT your SKIN conCEALS?
miSTAKES do NOT show WHAT you ARE;
a TRIP is NOT a DEER'S right STEP.

A FREEzing DAY may ONCE eSCAPE
and MAR the BEAUty OF the SKY,
but SUMMer is KNOWN for its SUN
and ITS clear SKY whose BLUE charms MAN.

the 3rd line of the 2nd stanza is an iamb, followed by a pyrrhic foot, with the anticipated 2nd stressed syllable of the line transferred to the the 3rd foot, which become a troche--trochaic substitution.

The poem scans a two-syllable foot, with 1 stress.
Iambs with substitutions.

Who TELLS you THAT your misTAKES SHOW

but HIS heart's OF a subLIME BEAT (whatever that means)

or

BUT his HEART'S of A subLIME BEAT

can THAT slip BRING him A BAD NAME?

or
CAN that SLIP bring  HIM a BAD NAME?

In any case,  the claims within this piece are nonsense and the title is woefully deictic.

1st line:

who TELLs you THAT your miSTAKES SHOW

iamb - iamb - pyrrhic - spondee (substitution of 3rd foot stress to double stress 4th foot)

can that SLIP BRING him a BAD NAME

pyrrhic - spondee - pyrrhic - spondee (the iamb to pyrrhic spondee substitution is very common; Byron was a particular fan)

or you can simply read it

can THAT slip BRING him A bad NAME

One of the pleasures of meter (this is maybe unique to iambs in English) is the way the meter lingers over / under substitutions. As Pound implied, it's pretty durable, and not easy to break (but Eliot succeeded!).
Best!

Do you really think that J-Z knows what meter his lines display, let alone that he actively and knowingly set his words to follow these metrical units, especially since he has claimed that good poetry is written in lines that are rhythmically consistent with one another?

Where did I write that?

I didn't say that you wrote that.  I was asking you (apparently with some clumsiness) if you thought J-Z's knows what the meter is  that his lines display, let alone the terms for their metrical units,  and if you thought he intentionally set out to produce the particular (mixed) metrical patterns that you have correctly shown his lines as having.

Thank you very much, Lozzamus. I highly appreciate your encouragement.

Thank you very much, Ahavati. I love the idea which you mentioned. It's one of the ideas which shows that Jesus is God.

How does the fact that Jesus noted that those who were ready to stone an adulterous woman for her sin  were themselves sinners show that he was God?  It's an observation that anyone could (and often do with justification) make.   On your logic, anyone who points out that others are hypocrites when it comes to their outrage over, and their seeking to criminalize,  what they consider to be immoral acts (such as those in government or in ministry who loudly condemn and wish to punish  homosexuality but are found to have engaged in homosexual acts) should be regarded as God.  

Thank you very much, my dearest Mark, for your like and support. It's very kind of you to say you enjoyed my poem. BTW, l have a BA in ENGLISH LITERATURE, and l think l know something about my specialization, and all the meters, which l can use all in my poetry, which l indite for such a long time. I am sure, we shall be very close friends because l like all your comments.

But haven't you said that for something to be poetry it needs, among other things,  a  display of a regular, and not a mixed or a, from line to line, jumbled,  meter?

And shouldn't you have written "... which l can use all in my poetry, which l HAVE  inditED [i.e., have been writing] for such a long time"?

In any case, the issue isn't what metrical feet you CAN use,  but whether your use of a variety of them within a line, let alone inconsistently from line to line, gives what you write the lyricism that is characteristic of good poetry.

I know the sentence patterns, and the grammar of the English language better than you do, Baldwin. Stop giving me another possible way of saying the same thing and saying,"lsn't it better to say it like that?" No, it isn't. You need to teach yourself first.

So it has taken you a long time to write what you write?  That's what  your syntax makes you say.    

But if you were trying to say in your message above  that you have been writing poetry for some time now,  the way you have asserted this shows that you are not as familiar with the ins and outs of English as you claim you are.
 
In any case, please show me where I actually said,  "lsn't it better to say it like that?".  
   
I really wish you would stop putting words in my mouth  when you are trying to show that what I actually said was off the mark.

What's your job, Baldwin?

My comments are either valid or invalid on their own terms, not because of what my job is.  You can appeal to the fact that you have "credentials" all you want, and therefore assert (though without knowing what, if any,  degrees I hold or where I'm from and where I've been educated) ) that you know English better than I do. But unless you actually **demonstrate**  that what I have said is off the mark, all you then do is engage in the woeful misconception that bare assertion has evidentiary weight as well as  the fallacy known as the appeal to authority (which, BTW, you continually demonstrate you lack despite your having a BA in English literature.   All such an undergraduate degree in literature does is to give you some claim to knowing what good English writing has been thought to be.  It is not a guarantee that you will [or always do] use that knowledge well.  The proof is in the pudding, not in the bragging).  
 
And as to credentials,  besides two BAs in unrelated but mutually intertwined subjects,  I hold an MA and a PhD in my main field of interest.  Now what that means, especially given the University in which these degrees were earned, is that I **should** be able to produce good and well constructed arguments for any of the claims I make when I write up articles (and books)  for publication.  It does **not**  mean that the arguments will always be sound (or that I see where I have gone wrong if I have done so).  I wonder if you know how I (and my knowledge of my field) would be regraded if, having received a rejection letter from an editor,  I responded with "but I have outstanding credentials!"  
   
So when you claim that points about your work that I make are nonsense and/or invalid or not worth dealing with,  it would be wise for you, if you want anyone to conclude that what you say is sound, to bring this knowledge into play rather than bragging that you have it.  

Cue the "this is too long for me to read" response (or a variant of it) as a way of (falsely) delegitimizing , and not replying in an adult fashion to, what I have said here.

Really, you surprise me when you say that you have a PhD in your field of interest, which is supposed to be poetry here. That is because your poetry lacks the depth of feelings, and the subject matter, and your comments don't seem sound to me but very repulsive and superficial. Therefore, l don't take them seriously. However, to tell you the truth, l like your style in writing. It is really distinguished.

"Really, you surprise me when you say that you have a PhD in your field of interest, which is supposed to be poetry here."  
 
So  one cannot have interests other than poetry?.  And who said one's major field of interest is supposed, let alone has, to be poetry to post here?  
 
"That is because your poetry lacks the depth of feelings, and the subject matter,"  
 
"the" subject matter.  More deixis.  And another instance of how you seem not to know how to write prose that makes sense.  
 
Did you mean to write  
 
"That is because your poetry lacks the depth of feelings, and does not deal with the subject matter that characterizes good poetry,?  
 
 
BTW,  have a look at what's been said about my  latest submissions by other poets here.  They strongly disagree with your assessment of what I post here.  So I wonder if you realize that in saying what you say about my submissions you are also saying that the opinions of  these people regarding how my submissions are filled with deep feelings and that I do indeed deal with the subject that poems should deal with, not to mention that I do so with art and skill  are not only worthless, but also show that the people who have high regard for the way I write are stupid and blind.  
 
"and your comments don't seem sound to me but very repulsive and superficial."  
 
That's because your ego won't let you admit, without it breaking down,  that you might not be as good as you think you are.  
 
And once again,  all you've done here is to assert something about the way I write instead of doing what you should be doing  if you are to be believable -- namely,  to actually show  how and why my comments are "repulsive and superficial."

1-Baldwin says... how to write prose that makes sense.
It should be: how to write THE prose that makes sense.

"1-Baldwin says... how to write prose that makes sense.
It should be: how to write THE prose that makes sense."

Why should I have engaged in deixis?

Justify your mistake if you can.

First justify your claim that I should have written "how to write THE prose that makes sense."

Prose here is qualified by a relative clause THAT MAKES SENSE. Therefore, it requires a definite article to define it and not to mean PROSE in general.
BTW, l want you to be calm and write the word CLAIM correctly because your word gives a different meaning.

"Prose here is qualified by a relative clause THAT MAKES SENSE. Therefore, it requires a definite article to define it and not to mean PROSE in general."    

Nope.  The clause is adjectival.  The phrase means "sensible/intelligible prose.
    
Take a look at the context of  "how to write prose that makes sense".  It is      
  
"[Your use of deixis is ...]  another instance of how you seem not to know how to write prose that makes sense"   and what is being stated there is that even your prose sentences are, given the lack of grammatical felicity within them,  incomprehensible and full of solecisms..  That is to say, just as your show yourself incapable of writing well when you are composing poetry,  you also don't know how to write well when you are composing prose sentences.    
   
But perhaps you'll write  to the composers of these sentences and tell them how wrong they've been to have written the way they have.    
   
   
How To Choose The Right Word    
   
Writers tend to use the wrong word more often than the right one. As a writer you have a duty to write prose that makes sense, reads well, and interests the reader. J    
   
https://lucidbookspublishing.com/using-the-right-word/    
   
I suggest that you use the book as a workbook,    
experimenting with the steps on sections of prose as you go,    
ranging in length from a few paragraphs to a full section. It is    
not necessary to work with the same prose as you work through    
the steps. Instead work on prose that makes sense.    
   
https://teaching.nmsu.edu/_assets/images/PF_15e_WhyIwrotethisbook.pdf    
   
but when it comes to captivating readers and crafting prose that makes sense there are a few guidelines that simply cannot be ignored. Whether you typically play by the rules or not, to become a truly great writer you will want to take heed of these five pieces of advice.    
   
http://blog.paperblanks.com/2016/03/writing-wednesday-the-5-secrets-of-good-writing/    
   
HOW DO SUCCESSFUL AUTHORS IMPROVE THE READABILITY OF THEIR WORK?    
All successful writers hone language skills to present readable prose that makes sense and keeps readers reading.    
   
https://memorywritersnetwork.com/blog/answers-to-frequently-asked-questions-about-how-to-write-a-memoir/

You asked me to justify my claim, why you should write THE PROSE, and l did. Then you left the whole subject and gave me tedious advice which you should have kept to yourself. What's the matter, Baldwin?

Your justification doesn't hold water.  And the examples of the use of the phrase that I cited show that  you are wrong in what you claim the  clause is and how it functions.

In any case,  it's quite clear that your prose statements are often filled with solecisms and that you are not a master of  English.

You don't know grammar, Baldwin. Don't say,"Don't hold water," but refute it by grammar rules if you know any and can do that. Now l know you better than anyone else after your long pursuit to what l write.

And here I thought that the issue wasn't whether I know grammar,  but whether your prose is filled with solecism, as well as your  "Mistakes Don't Show The Character [of what?} is well written, does not make questionable assertions, and does not contain writing mistakes.    

Focusing on whether or not a phrase I used is a relative clause is a red herring and does not in any way **demonstrate** that the claims I made about how and where your piece is poorly written are off the mark.

"Don't say,"Don't hold water," but refute it by grammar rules if you know any and can do that. "    
    
Leaving aside the fact that I said "doesn't hold water" (and therefore that you've once again misquoted me), I find it extremely ironic that this admonition comes from someone who, when asked to back up his claims  that my remarks are stupid or repulsive or superficial, are off the mark  or not worth speaking to by providing evidence for them, so often  refuses to demonstrate that his claims are true, have merit, and are worth considering.  
 
Why should I extend to you the courtesy that you regularly refuse to extend to me?