Published weekday mornings as the coffee brews
Jessica,It seems like there must be some sort of "back-story" that goes along with this one. Have you ever considered adding some of the backstories that led you to some of your pictures?It might take away from the "universality" but I think it would an interesting perspective for regular readers of your blog!Dave
A tad too bitter for me. I'm not yet jaded by life enough to believe that anyone "outside the will" won't call.
You could also switch B and C.
I think it's supposed to be that B got in the last will because he visited and c didn't because he didn't visit. Is that wrong?
As usual, I think I read this differently...the one who were less likely to call were the ones less likely to care in general, and therefore are the ones who are getting nixed from the will; the ones who were likely to show up were the ones who had shown compassion throughout life, and are therefore the ones likely to be included in the will.That graphs can have different readings is interesting to me, as it indicates how fragile/versatile pictoral representations can be--even mathematical ones.
I read it like English Clergyman - that the actions of B and C led to inclusion/exclusion in the Will - mainly because I assumed those in groups B and C didn't know the contents of the Will. If groups B and C do know the contents, then the backstory gets more interesting.
And now I feel even guiltier that I haven't called my Grandma. The 3 hour time difference + her early bedtime makes it difficult. :(
David,it means that those who don't call, don't make it in the will; not that if they don't make it in the will they wont call.
i have to see my grandma... thanks for reminding me..
I have seen with a few instances which would lead me to believe that B and C, could indeed be switched.Often, the ones who paid the most attention to the person in his last few years, got kicked aside in favor of those who were more closely related. And the two variable were usually mutually exclusive.
Post a Comment