THE LOUD CALL

Sorry,  but this "praise Jesus" piece is not written well"  nor is it thematically consistent with itself
"In my heart, l hear a call
which insists on me to trail"

"insists on me" is not good English

"Insist that I  should trail" is what you should have said.

"certain passion deep and strong"

are you saying  that you've been induced to trail a passion that is a  certainty or  that you've been induced to tail a particular passion?  And shouldn't the word "passion" be set out in the plural, i.e., "certain passionS deep and strong?    

"That emotion started when
I was young, in my late teen."

again,  not good English. " Proper English would be "In my late teenS."

"Then l thought it was for girls
and their eyes with their blond curls."

Leaving aside the fact that you say here that the only girls you were attracted to were blonds,  your statement is an ambiguous one  in that it can legitimately be read as saying that girls eyes had blond curls.  You'd be rid of the ambiguity if you'd change this to "and their eyes and their blond curls."

"Time then folded years but still"

This is an odd statement since time does not bend things  over on itself so that one part of it covers another part of it and years cannot be folded.  And you've left unclear whose years you are talking about.

If you meant to say that even after you grew old your desire to experience deep and mighty passion did not diminish,  you haven't said it.

"ancient sounds inside me squeal
for a kind of love so strange
which no change can it derange.

"Can it derange" is forced rhyme and therefor an example of poor writing and sows that one does nor possess sufficient command of English to write felicitously".

More importantly, "derange"  means to "cause (someone) to become insane" or to "throw (something) into confusion; cause to act irregularly". So in using this word, you end up saying that you are looking for the kind of love (even though your said previously that what you were seeking was the experience of passion)  that is impervious to being made insane or into something that acts irregularly.

"It's the Start of love itself,
Who created man and life."

since love itself is a thing, not a person,  you should have written "which/that created man and life.  And your syntax here makes you say that "man"  was created before life was.

And according to biblical theology,  Jesus was not the start of love, let alone its source, nor was he the creator of "man" and life.

"None can satiate what l crave
for except the Source of Love."

So what is it that you crave, passion or love?
BY JOSEPH ZENIEH

1-l can insist on someone or something.
2-Passion: can be countable or uncountable.
3-in my late teen: in my late Nineteen
4-and their eyes with their blond curls: Nobody who has a little bit of a mind will relate the curls to the eyes. He must be ... if he will.
5- Time is folding years is an image. A good poet can imagine it.
6- derange: put into a state of disorder. It fits the meaning l used in the poem.
7- God is Love, so Love can have Who.

"1-l can insist on someone or something."

Yes,  you can but only  if what **you** are intent to do is to keep doing something that annoys people

https://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/insist-on-something

"2-Passion: can be countable or uncountable."

I asked what the noun and the expression attached to it refers to in your line, not what it can be in terms of its countability. So what you say above is NOT an answer to my question.

"3-in my late teen: in my late Nineteen

No one who is a native English speaker would use that expression to say "when I was almost twenty" let alone think that "in my late teen" is not a solecism, let alone means what you say it means.  Can you give me any examples from literature where "in my teen" is used to signify "in my late Nineteen" (which is also a solecism,  and is not acceptable as the equivalent of "late in my nineteenth year".
.
"4-and their eyes with their blond curls: Nobody who has a little bit of a mind will relate the curls to the eyes. He must be ... if he will."

Leaving aside your snide insult to my intelligence and your cowardice about saying explicitly what it is that the person who sees you as having related "the" curls to "the" eyes,   the syntactical fact is  that  your use of "with" after "eyes"  makes "blond curls"   an attribute of "the" eyes,  just as  the sentence "his hair, with all of its blond curls, was beautiful to see",  has "curls" function as an attribute of "his hair"  

"5- Time is folding years is an image. A good poet can imagine it."

A good poet doesn't have to imagine that the phrase "time is folding years"  is an image.  It's plain that it is.  The question is whether given what "fold" means and given what the nature of time is,  you've captured what time does (or can do)  to years., let alone you've posted so contradictory and so unintelligible an image that what it supposedly depicts IS imaginable.  Moreover  what you say above does not in any way address the point I made that without saying whose years time has "folded",  your claim is even more unintelligible than it already is.

"6- derange: put into a state of disorder. It fits the meaning l used in the poem."

Even if "meanings", rather than words,  are used in poems to convey the meaning of a line or the poem itself,  "to put into a state of disorder" is a secondary meaning of the word that is not as likely to come to a reader's mind when reading it as "to make insane" is.

And to speak about

"a kind of love so strange
which no change can it bring into disorder"  

is to make a statement that one has to puzzle over to understand what it actually is that you are seeking.

"7- God is Love, so Love can have Who."

But you speak about "the Start of love ITself", not  "the Start of Love HIMself".  So the clause that reads "created "man" and life" should (must) begin with "that", not "who".

Sorry,  but your defense of how you've set out your newest "praise Jesus" piece is not successful.

Sorry, your ideas are not convincing to me. I feel the logic you use is evasive and does not fit mine. Don't ask me to give you details. I have no time to waste on convincing a person who has plenty of time to waste.

"Sorry, your ideas are not convincing to me."  
 
Of course they are not since, in light of your self-perception that you are incapable of writing poorly and your belief that claims that you have written poorly are always grounded in a reader's lack of poetic imagination,  there's nothing that could ever convince you that the faults people find in your submissions are really there.  
 
"I feel the logic you use is evasive"  
 
Can logic be evasive?  Did you mean "unsound"  
 
"and does not fit mine."    
    
Of course it doesn't fit yours.  And that's because your "logic" (which is often grounded in informal fallacies) arises from your egotistic perception of yourself as one who has mastered all aspects of English grammar and who is, therefore, one for whom it is impossible to write poorly.    
   
"Don't ask me to give you details." I have no time to waste on convincing a person who has plenty of time to waste.    
   
Well, here's another example of how you don't say what you mean to say since without your noting what it is that I waste my time on, your sentence is incomplete as well as illogical.    How does the fact that I have time to say what I say a "waste"  of it if what I say is both warranted and valid?  And how does having time on my hands make me someone who could or could not be convinced of something?  
   
 I take it that you meant to say that even if you actually had or could come up with good counter-arguments to the things I said about your submission and knew how to show that they were off base, you won't make an effort to use them to try to convince me that my remarks about how poorly The Loud Call is written are wrong  --- since I, according to you,  am incapable of understanding what you'd say to show me that I'm wrong, and therefore your doing so would be a waste of your time.    
   
But I note that it is an admission on your part that providing you with solid evidence that does indeed show not only that, but how and why,  your piece is both poorly written and shows a poor grasp of what is and what isn't good English,  is a waste of  MY time since  you cannot  admit that criticisms of your work are on target without giving up on your claim that it is impossible for you to write poorly and that any defenses of  the comprehensibility of what you have written will be off point in not addressing what I say about it.

Your logic is evasive like all your answers which depend on boring, lengthy accounts which no one can bear to continue reading them. According to my being egotistical, l leave to the reader to say who is egotistical you or l. How can anyone cope with you in your long boring answers. I am sure no person can cope with you in this skill if we can call it a skill.

"Your logic is evasive"

How can logic be "evasive"?  It's either sound or unsound.

"like all your answers"

Really?  What do my answers "evade"?   (Cue the evasion of this question).  

"which depend on boring, lengthy accounts which no one can bear to continue reading them. "

This is bad English.  Your sentence should end  with "reading".

In any case ,  even if it's true  that my answers "depend" on "boring, lengthy accounts" (accounts of what, BTW?) that "fact" does not negate the validity of the points I make within them  -- points that you constantly evade speaking to.  

And you have yet to prove that no one can bear reading my remarks about the way your write or my responses to how you evade showing  (in sentences that are often replete with bad English) that they are off the mark and instead post things that display your inability to do.

"l leave to the reader  [deixis -- which reader is "the" reader?] to say who is egotistical [,]  you or l."

Do you deny that you have frequently presented yourself as being someone who knows everything there is to know about poetry,  is incapable of writing poorly,  and is absolutely certain he possess such skill in writing poetry that he can say with great confidence that when anyone accuses him of writing poorly and in a style that is off putting, it's because the accuser  is deficient in poetic imagination and sound knowledge of what good poetry looks like,  and not because of the way you write?  If you  do deny this,  you are a prevaricator since it is undeniably demonstrable that you have presented yourself  this way.

Cue the evasive answer to this question since an honest response to it to it would reveal  that between the two of us, J-Z is the one who deserves the appellation "egotistical".

"How can anyone cope with you in your long boring answers. I am sure no person can cope with you in this skill if we can call it a skill."

What makes you sure that "no one" can  deal effectively with my "skill"  (presumably) for writing "long  boring" answers, let alone that everyone who reads them finds my answers boring and not on point? What backs up your claim?  

Does anyone here want to wager that there will be no relevant answer from J-Z to these questions,  which BTW,  are succinct and warranted.

"... and is absolutely certain he possessES such skill... ." If you are looking for such silly mistakes, you must be careful not to make them yourself.

"... and is absolutely certain he possessES such skill... ."  
 
Yes,  possesses.  I missed that mistake when I proofread my message.  
 
"If you are looking for such silly mistakes, you must be careful not to make them yourself."  
 
I do not look for such mistakes in your messages,  although you often make them.   They stand out all on their own and, given your request for honest criticism of the way you write,  call out for correction.
 
In any case,  noting nothing but the fact that I used an incorrect verb form in my message to you is hardly doing what I asked you to do, namely, to demonstrate that the points I raised about your claims that I made in it are not valid.  But it does show that the predictions I made there -- i.e., that in any response you might make to my message, you would not answer the questions I asked you there -- were (and are) correct.  So thanks for showing that I was spot on.

I see that in response to my criticism of how your lines

"It's the Start of love itself,
Who created man and life."

were poorly written, you've changed them to

God's the Start and Love itself,
Who created man and life.  

So you admit that my remarks that "since love itself is a thing, not a person,  you should have written "which/that created man and life."   and that " since you speak about "the Start of love ITself", not  "the Start of Love HIMself"" ....  the clause that reads created "man and life" should (must) begin with "that", not "who, " were on point, and that I actually know something about what is and is not good English.

But I have to say that your revision of these lines is still not good English.

In the first place,  for "God's the start"  to be comprehensible,  you need to say what he is the start of.  But you don't.

Secondly,  there is no need for a comma after "love itself".

Third,  since the referent of the clause that begins with "who" is "love itself', not God, you still should have written "that/which created ..."

Moreover,  even if you had written "God's the start OF love itself",  you'd still be wrong to use "who" to begin the next line since what you'd  then be saying is "God's the start of the love that  created man and life."

But even then, you'd raise the eyebrows of anyone who knows the story of the creation of "man" in Genesis.  There is nothing there that says that Love created human beings, let alone life.   What those stories say is that it was BECAUSE of  love that the one true God created man and life (though in Gen. 1,  he is said to create life first).

So once again you show yourself to be one who writes poorly and who does not know matters biblical very well.      

Return to what is supposed to be your criticism, you will find that what you had written in your first message is completely different from what you wrote in your message before this one. In that one, you had asked me to change WHO into WHICH or THAT. Where is your integrity, Baldwin. I kept WHO as it is, but l made other changes you hadn't spoken about. I didn't follow any of your destructive remarks.

I did NOT ask you in my first message to change "who" into "which/that".  I noted that if the referent of the clause that began with "who"  is a thing, (which it most certainly was) then grammar demands that the first word in that clause should be "that/which".   And I did NOT say something different in my last message to you.  I actually made the very same point.  For after all, when you  changed your lines from  

It's the Start of love itself

to  

God's the Start and Love itself,  

you did not change the referent of the clause that begins with "who".  It is still a thing.

So since I did not change or contradict what I had said in my first message,  and since your accusation that I did is a false one,  it's not me who is without integrity or who has acted dishonorably.

And why should I have spoken of any other changes you say you made to your text?  Haven't you said that I should stop writing long messages?

And perhaps you'll demonstrate not only that my remarks about how poorly  The Loud Call is written were destructive, but that there were things in your piece that they actually destroyed. destroy>

Here's another instance of your poor writing that I did not mention before.

In my heart, l hear a call  
which insists on me to trail  
certain passion deep and strong  
flowing sweetly in my veins.  

That emotion started when  
I was young, in my late teen.  

The problem here is that, given your syntax, what it was that started when you were in your late teens,  was not an emotion but the hearing of a call that kept urging you over and again to pursue what, if tracked down, was sure to provide you with something that would flow "deep and strong"  within your veins.

Moreover, you say that this "certain passion" already flows deep and strong within your veins,.  So why does this call tell you that you must seek (presumably to obtain) a "certain passion" when you already possess it?  To be conceptually consistent,  you needed to have written something like " to trail a certain passion that promised to flow deep and strong within my veins".  

There's also the fact that the comma you've placed after "heart" violates the rules of punctuation. and shows that you do not know how to use commas properly.  After all, what you are attempting to say is that you heard a call in your heart.

"In my heart, l hear a call"
Correct you grammar, Baldwin. The comma here is necessary. I am not ready to teach you English grammar about the usage of comma. You look it up yourself. The other idea is not worth considering.

It's your claim that it is necessary.  So it's up to you to demonstrate why.  
 
But did I note only one other idea?  My count is that in addition to my idea about the correctness of the placement of a comma,  
I made two other arguments on two different things in your piece that opened you up to the charge of writing .poorly.  The reason that you declare that they are not worth considering is that you know they do indeed show something that you don't want to see,  i.e.,  that it is indisputable that you write poorly, and that you would be severely taxed to counter.

ladies and gentlemen  

these two guys have been dissecting each others poetry for some years. for the most part the conversations (admittedly sometimes a bit aggressive) are between the two poets  

sometimes one or another of the poets reports a comment. for the most part they go back and forth with each other  

by all means join in on their discussions e.g:  the Lady Eerie's comments  

there's really no need to go through these poets poetry with the sole purpose of looking for something to report

Thank you very much, Lozzamus , for choosing my poem for your reading list.