DREAMS

"What are you, dreams, who gives you forms
inside the minds that trust in you?"

This should be

What are you, dreams?  Who gives you forms
inside the minds that trust in you?

"Is it the king of luck who weaves
your strange events with mystic yarn?"

Are you going to answer this question?

And are you really saying that the source of all dreams -- especially for those who "believe in dreams (that is to say,  regraded them as portents")  is "the king of luck" (who ever that is)?

"His wand is long and goes so far
to connect people with the stars,
from which he brings good scenes or bad,
that indicate what will occur."

Leaving aside the "wrenched accent" (the false stress that must be applied to "connect" in order for the pronunciation of that word  to fit the iambic meter that " to connect people with the stars" is otherwise set out in,  are you really claiming that dreams should always be taken as indicating what will happen to a dreamer in the future?

Very dear SS,
Thank you very much for your reading, liking, and adding my poem to your reading list. It's very kind of you.

I see that you've taken into account my "nit" regarding the fault I found in your  

" What are you, dreams, who gives you forms
inside the minds that trust in you?"  

and edited your lines to read  

What are you, dreams?  Who gives you forms
inside the minds that trust in you?

as I noted you should do and therefore acknowledged (with out saying so) that  this "nit" was not gratuitous,  but warranted and that contrary to what you often claim,  your writing is not flawless.
  

Great writing.  You are a natural storyteller and poet.

I'd really like to know why you consider this writing to be "great".  What criteria do you use to determine how and why a writing fits the category of "great"?  And what do you mean by "great"?  
 
I ask you this because I -- and I'm sure others here -- want to know why we should take your claims  about J-Z's submissions seriously.  
 
Perhaps you'll look at my latest submissions and, using your criteria, tell me how and why they are or are not "great" as well as  how and why I am or am not a good poet.  Please be as specific and articulate as possible.

Very dear Lozzamus,
Thank you very much for your reading, liking, choosing for your reading list, and for your very kind comment. You are a very dear friend to me.

To be  a comprehensible statement,  this:

"Thank you very much for your reading, liking, choosing for your reading list, and for your very kind comment."

should be

"Thank you very much for your reading, liking, choosing MY SUBMISSION/POEM for your reading list, and for your very kind comment ABOUT IT."

In any case,  what makes you believe that Lozzamus possesses sufficient critical acumen let alone that his insubstantial and unsubstantiated comments on your writing skills are valid?

This is the problem with you, Baldwin. You want people to write in your own style. You think yourself that you are a poet and a great writer. I have read English books that equal the number of the hair in your head, and all of them were written by the really greatest writers, and not by a writer who tries to impose himself to be great but nobody cares for him. Please enough of this misconduct and pretentiousness. You have exaggerated too much. I know your real dimensions,Baldwin.

This is  not an answer to my question.  I asked what made you think L possessed any degree of sound critical acumen -- i.e.,  had a good sense and knowledge of of what, according to people like Eliot and Auden and Paget and the Pulitzer prize winners in Poetry, poets laureate, and editors of award winning and highly regarded poetry journals are the widely accepted standards of good poetry that should be employed in a poem for a poem to be good -- so that his rather abstract and unsubstantiated opinions of the quality of your writing should be regarded by those well read in poetry as valid.  I did NOT say that I wanted him to write according to my style.   So thanks again for misrepresenting what I actually said so that you could try to score some points against me.

To be correct and sensible English this

"I have read English books that equal the number of the hair in your head,"

should be " The number of English books that I have read equals the number of the hairS ON your head,  

So far as I know,  I have no hairs IN my head.

Likewise, Baldwin, "This IS not an answer to my question." Correct it in your comment before the last, Baldwin. What's your opinion about that? This dull invention of yours has no end.

Corrected.      
 
Now, perhaps, you'll rewrite your (irrelevant,, question begging, and unsubstantiated) statement about how many English books you have read so that it actually says what it appears you were trying to say.  
 
And while you are at it,  how about actually answering my question about why how you know that  L has sufficient critical acumen and knowledge of what is generally and correctly recognized as what makes for  good poetry for  anyone to accept his rather uncritical and unsubstantiated and minimally articulated opinions of the quality of your submissions as well informed and valid?  
   
BTW, how do you know how tall I am, what my waist and chest size and leg and arm length  is?  Or did you mean something else when you claimed you know my "dimensions"?

I mean by DIMENSIONS, your real strength and weakness in grammar and your poetic skills. Even this needs explanation. What do you understand, Baldwin. You drive people to hate you, but l pity you, Baldwin.
BTW, Please don't ask me any questions about the poets whom l love. Why don't you ask them directly?

Given what the Cambridge Dictionary of the English Language and the Longman Dictionary note is the most basic meaning of the word" dimension", i.e.,  

"B2 [ C often plural ]
a measurement of something in a particular direction, especially its height, length, or width"

you would have been far better off and far more accurate in saying what you claim was your intended meaning,  if you had used  the word "abilities" or the phrase "I know what the extent of you abilities (with respect to your use of good grammar and your poetic skills) are.

"BTW, Please don't ask me any questions about the poets whom l love."

Why not?  Wouldn't you be able to answer my question easily if you actually had good grounds for saying that these poets' unsubstantiated comments on your submissions arose from their having sound knowledge of what is generally acknowledged to be  what goes into the making of good poetry?

"Why don't you ask them directly?"

I have -- and on more than one occasion.  But they have been conspicuously reluctant to give me an answer about why their opinion of the quality of your submissions should be considered as informed and valid.

 

Great poem - this was my favourite:

"Is it the king of luck who weaves
your strange events with mystic yarn?"

Thank you vey much for your liking my poem and adding it to your reading list, PE. It's very kind of you.