Would you say Roger Ebert is an above-mediocre filmmaker?

PS-Now, please stop spitting and pay attention. I'm not insane pointing out that the uninformed pseudo-science in your poem is guff and unnecessary guff, as that's essentially what EVERY SINGLE PERSON who's bothered to comment on your poem has said.

So GET OFF MY BACK, man. You've gotten in way over your head here! Just take a chill pill, and back yourself up. And so on and so on and so on.

"In a time/space continuum, time does flow freely at its
outer limits as there exists nothing to impede its flow" is wrong. And it's essentially saying, 'Time is not impeded unless there is something to impede it', which is doubly silly. And that's not what you're saying in the poem.

"Time is being created, not in a conventional sense but
in accordance with quantum theory and a four dimensional
time/space" is a bunch of big words you have no idea about. You don't know what quantum theory has to do with time (hint: practically nil); you just thought you could talk enough science to scare me off. Without that buncombe bit about "quantum theory", you're essentially saying, 'Time is created along the principles of time-space'. Congratulations! Why do you think it's called time-space? COULD IT BECAUSE BECAUSE TIME EXISTS (IS POSSIBLY 'CREATED') AND INTERACTS WITH SPACE IN IT?? YES!!!

"Light is indeed impeded by gravity and other
things such as mass but that is not what is happening as
time becomes extant" is similarly wrong. That's exactly what happens to time (cf. Theories of Relativity 1:1).

Re: "(yes, they do cause craters to form but on the waters surface, not on a flower.)" - you have no basis for saying that, except that it sounds cool and semi-scientific and you don't imagine anyone has the cojones to call you on it. Think again, buster.

"exploding stars creating reycled stardust" is essentially the same thing as saying, 'Empty aluminum cans creating recycled aluminum'. If you can't see why that's silly, please check yourself before you wreck yourself.

Please don't tell me what an oxymoron is. I didn't attend 7 years of Accredited Poetry School for nothing. Being slightly drunk now, I can't recall exactly why I said "random destination" is an enormous contradiction, though I imagine it must have been because the word destination in itself connotes some sort of determination, which is the opposite of random, or because I was talking out of my ass. Obviously, I can spin a globe and decide that wherever my finger randomly lands on it will be my destination, but that's not what you've said in your poem, anyway. So: buncombe.

4) You don't know what superstrings are. Or, I daresay, dimensions.

5) "Bizarre concepts beyond reason, when reality becomes fantasy" is too gufftuous to bother with disembow'ling. At any rate, "reality" (or "what is real") is, by definition, anything which is in the universe. It's entirely different from "fantasy", not at all "beyond reason", and you're just ass-talking to the Nth degree. The only people "unsure" of the difference between fantasy and reality, I'm afraid, are monstrously deformed clods.

6, 7, & 8) Etc., etc., etc.

Is -= Zamzara =- the "zany", "clever", "wildly imaginative" username you were referring to earlier?

I'm afraid I'm dead serious, Quarton. And it is yourself, not myself, which is making unsupportable 'blanket statements' (or, alternately, 'meaningless indictments') all over the place and fancying yourself clever.

So check out this hook, cool:

1) Time does not "flow unimpeded through space", as any scientist since at least the great Dr Carawax can tell you, but is in fact impeded by practically every object with mass (or energy) everywhere. (BONUS: It's not "ever expanding" either!)

2) Raindrops probably don't form "tiny craters" on what I imagine you mean to be flowers. And even if they do, they are not a "microcosm of the universe", which is a silly expression anyway.

3) "exploding stars creating recycled stardust" is also silly to the max; but the wrong part is probably "random destination", which would be untrue even if it weren't an enormous contradiction.

Would you like to hear more?

No. I couldn't. At any rate, you've got this whole conversation horribly wrong - to say nothing of your ideas about the universe, insect life, or what good poetry is 'about'. I never said this poem was about believing all animals are equally deserving of life; I just assumed you'd think something like that - and you do.

What's more, saying a poem, story, or nearly anything else is 'about' one thing or other is silly to the max. The only context I could imagine in which two people might reasonably be talking about what something is 'about' is some casual conversation, most likely simply for the purposes of identification, i.e.:

Chad: Have you read "Center of the Universe" by Dovina?
Brad: I don't remember. What's it about?
Chad: It's about a person stepping on a bug.
Brad: Oh, right. No.

In short, I'm afraid I'm going to have to cut you off here. No hard feelings.

-zodiac

PS-What's with saying "I knew a poet who..." all the time? Is that a... JIBE???!?

I should say not. In fact, if I were forced - at gunpoint, maybe - to say what this poem is 'about', I'd say it's about a person killing an insect, which is about the only sensible answer I can think of.

Would you say that all animals, including yourself, which believe they deserve life do, to some extent, deserve life?

No it's not. And if it were, you would still be making the same point, only worse.

That's not illogical.

What's illogical is your ill-considered notion that all animals are equally deserving of life, whatever their aesthetic value, which you've already refuted by pointing out that you're drawn to save cute animals such as whales, puppies, baby seals, and young Aboriginals, but not ugly ones like insects or adult Aboriginals.

Is it not more likely that endearing animals are simply better-equipped to survive in a human-dominated world than non-endearing ones are, and that all this nonsense about saving the ugly ones not only reeks of all the worst aspects of communism, but is also a MAJOR FLOUTING OF GOD'S IRON LAWS OF NATURE???!

Is this your leaving rant?

You're hugely wrong.

By being a colossal boob.

Checkmate. Cast down ye cutlasses and avast.

How is he supposed to take your suggestion seriously when you've used the archaism 'aught' instead of the correct word, 'ought'?

Who were the 'honest poets'?

I never mistake anything on this site for a poem.