Your title sums this up neatly. Since "all is" there is no part separate from another, so there is no reason to look because nothing is missing.
Yes, Diane. I'm glad this title 'worked' for you.See also how this pointer relates to what we're discussing the post @ apperceiving that you commented on!
Your title sums this up neatly. Since "all is" there is no part separate from another, so there is no reason to look because nothing is missing.
ReplyDeleteYes, Diane. I'm glad this title 'worked' for you.
ReplyDeleteSee also how this pointer relates to what we're discussing the post @ apperceiving that you commented on!