[link to rather better explained update at bottom. Suspect very few readers would have read it the way I intended. Though some might have found it amusing or some other feeling, rather than infuriating or insulting]
May have infuriated an unknown small number of readers (total has been small). Others may’ve had different reactions from amusement to scorn for incoherence. On political prose which sounds a tad charged, at least, it is helpful to sit on it at least a few hours to be able to see it as a reader. I fear there were few who read it who would have easily detected the skew, spin, and perspectives I intended. One sometimes must discover and define one’s meaning even to self. Third explanatory note (topmost) winds and rambles, likely disorganized, but touches all the bases necessary to explain myself I think. Hopefully those who read this time will dig it more and experience less unpleasant thoughts. I mainly stand by the draft, at least the way I intended it, but it is true that it absolutely did need an explanatory guidepost addendum at top to help people see through the colorful figures of speech and whatnot. Notes should likely be restructured and made as concise as possible. Notably, none of the spritz of blowback I received delivered or attempted any constructive thoughts. But since apparently the persons thought I meant each thing as literal truth, not surprised one who thought that would react badly. Can’t send all such corrections, as it was bulk SMS, as Dad would be nothing but irritated+ or try to command me to knock it off again, knowing him, no matter what possible move I make on this score. For the hypothetical persons who find extreme scorn-worthy incoherence: well, it isn’t incoherent, tho was all done in one pass. My crystal ball says internal factors will always prompt see anything I do as utterly unworthy of consideration in even smallest bits, forever. (Previous sentence does not refer to any relative or, to my knowledge, anyone I know. They may not be into my work but are not spite filled cynics, generally). Hm. The phantom implacable hater has been described as far more purely negative and unchanging than any real person could maintain. Exceedingly long, I know. Hope someone learns from the process descriptor.
Did indeed have a piece called an unspeakable piece of garbage, with intolerable writing style once. Dude in an Anarchism Facebook group. My cousin on the other hand felt it the finest piece of mine he’d ever seen. ~It has been said that no two people or one at different readings can ever read the same poem twice.~ It is each time screened through your own zeitgeist of the moment. Truly this is sort of true of all phenomena. Poetry may be especially suited to rendering the perpetual uniqueness of here and now unusually clear and obvious.
Ambivalent. Most all seemed important. Hope this one (above) is enjoyed, and I get my point across (interpretation of many, not all MY OWN opinion) at below link more comprehensibly, and without seeming horrible (no reprints without the explanatory chunks, yo). Tie the end regardless of if you feel finished. Few people want endless wandering fluidity as art(?). Recall the essential impossibility of expressing anything at all to completeness and exact precision.