I cannot, as I didn't read them, I don't need to. The quote itself is enough to show that Frost's intentions with the poem weren't straightforward, despite what the actual meaning of his words was.

He could well have intended on a specific person that was hit, in a specific way, but that still implies deception, what he wrote was intended to be read in a different way than how he truly meant it, that the number of people who really grasp it are going to be smaller than the number of people who read it.

What I was saying is that you could have, if you were really interested, go and research Frost's letters, instead of holding on to your traditional way of reading the poem, for that reason. That would be my response if I was interested in maintaining that viewpoint for those reasons, to investigate them. To make sure I have enough context to support the conclusion I'm making.

The manner in which you dismissed the new way of looking at them indicates that you are more interested in retaining the old meaning. New context is thrown out, not even worthy of consideration. It's this binary response I'm interested in.

I take an article like Orr's, which tries to color things in history with additional context, work that new info into my understanding, and try to find a new conceptualization of the past. I'm not so much interested in retaining my experience of the poem as much as all of the clarifying context, how these poets interact with each other, how America tends to view poems and culture and itself. To me the actual meaning of the poem is somewhat of a side show.

You took it and read it as an attack on, well, what exactly?