You say "waive to the train", but you can't "waive to" something. It's not a pun or wordplay, it's just bad grammar, and I'm not saying this because I lack insight or the willingness to investigate your text, if this is indeed the depth of your poetic expression. Your attempts to justify talking shit say more about the human condition than any of your actual "poetry".

Well, actually I intended the different spelling, so take some effort to contemplate the meanings please.


"We absolutely do renounce or waive our own opinions, absolutely yielding to the direction of others. --Barrow."

__________________
"Tell me what you see; and I'll know where you are"
~~cc

I gave love; you gave me a thistle;
We shared tenderness; then you ran away;
I planted a rose; and you blossomed;
I had fresh hopes; tho' winter froze them solid

I never said it was a typo or a mispelling. It doesn't matter whether you intended it, because you cannot "waive to" something. It's not a question of contemplating different meanings - those words in that sequence are meaningless.

This effectively proves what I've said; nothing is "waived to", because "waiving to" is a nonsense.

This is you, all over, isn't it? Your "poetry" is nothing without an audience, because you need us to read meaning into it for it to mean anything - to basically write it for you. If no-one humours you, you might as well be a monkey with a typewriter.

Well I won't. I won't contemplate the meanings. Because I'm sure that there aren't any. I'm absolutely certain that you do not know the difference between meaningful wordplay and just substituting homophones for each other because you think you'll get one over on the inferiors you have deal with.

I'm sorry, bad poetry I could deal with - it can be cute, endearing in a kitschy way, an insight into the world through someone's eyes - but soulless, pretentious poetry has no reason to exist. It says nothing about the world, and everything about how desperately the author wants us to notice them, to be a poet rather than to write a poem.

Ahhh, art gives the critic so much power that he otherwise wouldn't have. The question is: can the critic put his own art up for criticism? No! Because the critic does not create art; the critic feeds off the art--or shall I say the ego of the critic feeds off the art--a parasitic creature, he is.

__________________
"Tell me what you see; and I'll know where you are"
~~cc

I gave love; you gave me a thistle;
We shared tenderness; then you ran away;
I planted a rose; and you blossomed;
I had fresh hopes; tho' winter froze them solid

One does not need to be a chef to know when one is eating sewage.

Same principle applies here. The critic is under no obligation to provide his own art in order to prove the error in anothers.

Factual criticism remains factual, no matter how much you look down your nose at the 'non-artist'.