Thanks, Sheila. Openness reigns.
Bill
> On 21 Nov 2014, at 2:19 pm, Sheila Murphy <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Bill, I appreciate your question and statements I don't believe that you
> are missing something. The context began as political. Millicent found new
> meanings from there. I believe that those meanings hold. The "you" might
> function as "an other," or equally (in my reading) as plural.
>
> The ambiguity of my answer is not meant as a dodge. I recognize in your
> points and what Millicent said that the openness does lead in at least two
> different directions, either of which seems true (enough) :)
>
> Thank you, Sheila
>
> On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 7:33 PM, Bill Wootton <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
>> Sheila,
>>
>> I think I need some context here. I didn't, as Millicent clearly did, see
>> a domestic situation.It seems more to be a political poem. But I may well
>> be missing something. Wonder whether the 'you' is plural.
>>
>> Bill
>>
>>
>>>> On 21 Nov 2014, at 7:00 am, Sheila Murphy <[log in to unmask]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Here is who I am and what you are
>>> distends all referendum
>>> on finesse that channels
>>> chattel, thus
>>>
>>> the pitfalls loom,
>>> because we think
>>> that way, and
>>> I regret to say
>>>
>>> the homily we are about
>>> to hear will wear out
>>> and eventually
>>> wear us home. All winter
>>>
>>> turns to referendum
>>> on the statements
>>> we would chant in sync
>>> synthetically at least once.
>>>
>>> Sheila E. Murphy
>
|