Hmm, I think the misunderstanding often lies in attributing old English to form poetry. Old English is the language used (thee, thou, art, etc) not the form. Modern English can still use the different forms of poetry. Free verse is a form of poetry that still has restrictions but according to the poet.

Also many believe iambic is old English. Iambic is a type of metrical pattern, the same as trochee, dactyl, anapest, spondee. Except that iambic is closest to normal speech. People can speak in iambic and not even realize it. It's so close to common English that's why is the easiest to write.

In turn, people close themselves to believe that poetry is meant to be written in Old English. And also believe that sonnets need to be written like Shakespeare - using
Only iambic, but nope.

Edit: I identify with Dante rather than Shakespeare. I'm more about writing what one feels at the moment of writing than coming up with ideas that sound pleasing (though I'm not really familiar with Shakespeare so I might be mistaken on my thinking of how he wrote)

We have a similar point of view, except that I disagree... on the part about "if it's pleasing to read is poetry"... you know my view - poetry is written thought.

"I can't personally accept that poetry is just 'written thought' else it may as well be a diary entry. "

^ that's where the concept of quality comes into play. A diary entry and anything written can make a mind feel something and that's what poetry does, it makes one feel.

As far as old English, some of the words have already been discarded out of the dictionaries and some have change meaning. It's useless to employ what other people will not understand, unless, your purpose is for only yourself to understand it, then by all means.

As far as poetic technics, learn as many as you can. It doesn't hurt. It helps one to express ourselves better.

Oops, I meant to say that for something to be "pleasing" or "beautiful" or "unpleasantly beautifull" or "beautifully unpleasant, it's where the quality comes into play. The quality is what distinguishes an expert poet from an amateur poet. But ultimately both are poets. Literally, anyone who writes what he feels at the moment of writing is a poet. Anyone who writes can be consider a poet in my eyes. Literally, anyone is a poet yet not everyone is. There are the illiterate who can't write. But hey, if anyone writes what the illiterate person says he feels then that someone can make the illiterate person a poet. He or she had his her thoughts written for him/her.

But just because something written does not have quality, it doesn't make it not poetry. Because anything written that is processed by the mind can incite feeling.
Therefore, poetry is written thought. People recite written thought. (Though People recite quality poetry for the most part.)

But hey! Even prose is poetry. Peer reviews can be poetry. Essays can be poetry not of the highest quality (in my opinion), but is poetry.

It's just me, poetry is everything that is written. And Everything written are thoughts.

I see what you mean by the old English, I think you are pretty much repeating what I said on my poem. The words have evolved and have adapted to meet our current needs of expression (hence, my logic is why used words that have been forgotten and that have already been transformed into a newer word. Though If you want to used them, by all means, you can run the risk of not being understood or bring them back but that's your choice) nothing wrong with that. My preference - just write what you feel like writing. We are a new generation of poets. We can doing our own thing.

By the way, there are unpleasant poems. I stumbled upon one that made me laugh and at the same time get angry. It was unplesant. Though it made me laugh. It made me feel angry. I dislike it but darn I liked it because it managed to make me feel both ways.... that poem had quality. Oh that was no amateur poet.

Anyhow, ciao. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. It's a pleasure to read them.