Lit.Org - a community for readers and writers Advanced Search

Average Rating

(0 votes)

You must login to vote

Numbers more than three, I do not need.
One is me.
Two is ever me and thee.
Any they (or he or she) and we
(that's you and me)
is three.

There's​ no we if only me.
There's​ no they without a we.
A million them?
Still we (that's you and me) and they:
that's three, I say.
A million we?
Still me and all of you:
that's only two.

You have said,,
"See... We're all one."
Well, that's ok. But less
than three, so they
(the all)
don't bother me.
Two is fine, too,
me and you
do not confuse;
no multitudes,
no divitudes.

Four's just two twos,
five feels contrived
and six or more?
Tedious, tendentious bore.

Listen. Listen. I don't see
more ways and hows and whys to count
than three;

are you (both),
are you (all) with


I blog irregularly at TinkerX. I'm also on Twitter. @andyhavens, go figure.

Related Items


The following comments are for "Who Counts?"
by andyhavens

Add Your Comment

You Must be a member to post comments and ratings. If you are NOT already a member, signup now it only takes a few seconds!

All Fields are required

Commenting Guidelines:
  • All comments must be about the writing. Non-related comments will be deleted.
  • Flaming, derogatory or messages attacking other members well be deleted.
  • Adult/Sexual comments or messages will be deleted.
  • All subjects MUST be PG. No cursing in subjects.
  • All comments must follow the sites posting guidelines.
The purpose of commenting on Lit.Org is to help writers improve their writing. Please post constructive feedback to help the author improve their work.