When I was eight-and-twenty
I heard my true love say,
"Give me drugs and pics and money
anything thou give away.
Give away thy salary
all on a suppliant* knee"
but I was eight-and-twenty
and passion doth blind me

When I was eight-and-twenty
I heard him say again,
"The heart out of thy bosom
Thou shall give in vain;
For I'll make you sigh aplenty
and there's nothing you can do"
And I am nine-and-twenty
And oh, 'tis true, 'tis true


p.s. this is a variation of "When I was one-and-twenty" by A.E. Housman, you can see the original poem here:
http://www3.amherst.edu/~rjyanco94/literature/alfrededwardhousman/poems/ashropshirelad/wheniwasoneandtwenty.html

*suppliant: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/suppliant%5B2%5D

When I was eight-and-twenty
I heard my true love say,
"Give me drugs and pics and money
anything thou give away.
Give away thy salary
all on a suppliant* knee"
but I was eight-and-twenty
and passion doth blind me

When I was eight-and-twenty
I heard him say again,
"The heart out of thy bosom
Thou shall give in vain;
For I'll make you sigh aplenty
and there's nothing you can do"
And I am nine-and-twenty
And oh, 'tis true, 'tis true




very, very good. i wouldnt change a thing about it lol. points for using the words " doth" "tis" and " thou" :p

Thank you very much kind sir :)

Although I must point out I basically just took an existing poem and substituted a few words...but thanks nevertheless.

oh, now i see. you didnt change a lot either. i feel kind of ignorant now :( o wellz

I don't really see the point of this. I see what you were going for (as you did quite intentionally give it away), I just don't see why it had to be written. It's all well constructed and all, but it seems rather dispassionate, which is disconcerting.

I don't really see the point of this.

1. You are assuming there is/was a point.
2. You seem to be implying (correct me if I am wrong) that poems/things need to have a point.
3. No offense but I don't particularly need to hear that you failed to see the point of my post (in other words, try not to be rude to people next time you open your mouth)


I see what you were going for (as you did quite intentionally give it away),

Huh wut? What was I "going for"?

I know that I wrote a lil thing out of boredom (with a few other emotions in small quantities thrown in); however I wasn't under the impression that I was "going for" some sort of effect here.


I just don't see why it had to be written.

1. I also don't see why this comment of yours had to be written (how does it feel when the shoe's on the other foot now?)
2. There is no need to be rude.
3. Nothing ever needs to be written. People just want to create, a concept you might do well to try and appreciate.
4. Just making sure: you don't have a problem with me, do you?


It's all well constructed and all, but it seems rather dispassionate, which is disconcerting.

You are in fact, correct, in that it's rather dispassionate. However:

1. A poem doesn't need to be "passionate" in order to have its existence warranted. See the limerick thread? Pretty much all of the poems/limericks are dispassionate however it sure doesn't keep people from writing them, does it?
2. I wasn't going for passionate anyway, just in case you can't tell. It was a bit of tongue-in-cheek, gloried play-on-words/an existing poem that I wrote to amuse myself (and hopefully, a few other people) with.
3. It was "disconcerting"? Give me a fucking break. If something that's "dispassionate" is apparently so "disconcerting" for you, you must go through life in a constant state of confusion/general unease. Although I am sure that was not what you actually meant; you probably just wanted to comment on my poem in a nasty fashion.


In conclusion:

1. Do you have a problem with me?
2. You are not a lovely person.

I didn't intend to be rude. I was just saying. And no, I have no issue with you. I've seen you write some good things. This wasn't one of them. So, I felt a need to say something. Would I have thought to check it if not for the picking on Toothless? Probably not. But that wasn't my motivator for actually saying something. Overall, I felt my comment was rather light. I wasn't saying it was horrible (in fact, I complimented you, something you apparently did not read or are immune to or were not looking for). I merely said I didn't see why you had written it. My comment about it being disconcerting is because you don't normally write dispassionate things from what I have seen so far.

In fact, I feel comfortable in positing that you have something against me to read in such nasty things into a short and mild comment I made. You were "going for" a short poem modeled on another. As you pointed out by posting a link to it and explaining what you had done in previous posts in this thread. Yet when I point this out, you feel some perverse need to attack my comment as though by saying I get what you were doing, I somehow undermine you. Or something equally as dumb. And I am not implying that things need to have points; quite the opposite. Well, not quite opposite... Things have points by nature. Just because a point is not deep does not mean it is not a point. You explained your point quite explicitly: to create something that was a bit of fun tongue-in-cheek wordplay based around another poem. That is a point.

BIG FUCKING HINT: When someone uses a word like "disconcerting", one would imagine that they are talking about their personal feelings. How you go about reasoning that because I find the level of dispassion in this to be some sort of omega-level code-red attack on the worth of its existence I cannot comprehend, but DO NOT PANIC. All is well and good. Just breathe, relax, and move on...

And yes, that last part was meant to be rude, as us rude boys do.

I didn't intend to be rude. I was just saying. And no, I have no issue with you. I've seen you write some good things. This wasn't one of them. So, I felt a need to say something. Would I have thought to check it if not for the picking on Toothless? Probably not. But that wasn't my motivator for actually saying something. Overall, I felt my comment was rather light. I wasn't saying it was horrible (in fact, I complimented you, something you apparently did not read or are immune to or were not looking for). I merely said I didn't see why you had written it. My comment about it being disconcerting is because you don't normally write dispassionate things from what I have seen so far.

1. Touche.
2. Thank you.


In fact, I feel comfortable in positing that you have something against me to read in such nasty things into a short and mild comment I made. You were "going for" a short poem modeled on another. As you pointed out by posting a link to it and explaining what you had done in previous posts in this thread. Yet when I point this out, you feel some perverse need to attack my comment as though by saying I get what you were doing, I somehow undermine you. Or something equally as dumb. And I am not implying that things need to have points; quite the opposite. Well, not quite opposite... Things have points by nature. Just because a point is not deep does not mean it is not a point. You explained your point quite explicitly: to create something that was a bit of fun tongue-in-cheek wordplay based around another poem. That is a point.

BIG FUCKING HINT: When someone uses a word like "disconcerting", one would imagine that they are talking about their personal feelings. How you go about reasoning that because I find the level of dispassion in this to be some sort of omega-level code-red attack on the worth of its existence I cannot comprehend, but DO NOT PANIC. All is well and good. Just breathe, relax, and move on...

And yes, that last part was meant to be rude, as us rude boys do.

haha, I was actually chuckling after I got done reading that. It was a good read, and furthermore, I felt like I now know you a little better. Also, apologies for getting so worked up (yes I do have a tendency to think the worst of people, working on it).

Carry on.

And you as well! This was a good joust. Most enjoyable.