Originally Posted by praefector

ive read this post about 5 times and i still dont see anything that contradicts my statement

just conjecture along a different tangent

what i was saying was that ... the narrator experiences a revelation. inherent within this revelation is a message... but a pen is needed to transmit the message (the pen in this case = understanding) without the pen (understanding) the message is lost and useless.

maybe another rebuttle from you will clear the air a bit because i still feel like we're on two seperate tangents of thought here