Today I had to leave a social site group dedicated to original Haiku poetry from its members. I enjoy the format and structure, and find hard not to get whiskers flying when people violate either or both. Everyone in the group was posting maligned content. Haiku is strictly about nature. Insult to injury was their improper use of structure. The first two lines are a fluid combination of thought. The third is a separate observation tied to the first two. Everyone was making all three lines what would be a single sentence if punctuation was included, like this:

land gives way to sea’s
constant struggle where they clash
yet life strives to be

This is a Hailku, as I have come to understand based on teachings and learned poets:

milky morning fog
smothers inner forest realm
doe rests peacefully

Many were posting what they must have thought was Haiku, but was in fact Senryu (theme based on human feelings and condition) :

moonlight shimmers bright
across the pond’s smooth stillness
a peace flows through me

Granted, there is still international debate over the rules and intent of the Japanese art of Haiku. Most American poets agree with the 5-7-5 English language syllable count, the last line distant but related by theme to the first two lines, and that they be strictly about nature.

So look, we've all heard of Grammar Nazis, relating to nitpicking and over-zealous protection of grammatical structure in written content. In this case, I'm addressing the simplest structured form of modern poetry in use. Three freakin' lines. Seriously, shouldn't Haiku be composed correctly, like any other form of structured poetry?