I want to thank Jim for his comments and hope he will be willing to continue the
dialogue.
1. Jim says, "In my humble opinion, if you wish to discover and understand the
deficiencies in your arguments, and the reason you "have had so few responses to
[your] posts," it would help to carefully study your own motivations."  I have
tried to study my motivations and hope Jim will give me whatever help he feels I
need.  My goal is to make a contribution to psychoanalysis as a science (or body
of knowledge for those to whom "science" is a dirty word).  I have always
acknowledged my narcissistic motives in the sense of a "desire for recognition,"
but I deny there is any evidence that these are greater than average among those
who try to publish papers.  Michael Uebel posted a message accusing me of "self
promotion," and maybe Jim and others feel the same way.  Perhaps Jim can tell me
how it is possible to promote an idea free from any self-promotion.  I believe I
have gone further than most in giving credit to those upon whose ideas my
contributions are based.  These can be found in my published papers, though I
can't repeat them in every message posted on the forum.
 
2. Regarding Masson's motivation, Jim may be entirely correct.  I have no
opinion and little interest in Masson's personal psychology.  What is important
for psychoanalysis is the resistance to new ideas.  Unless analysts believe that
the truth is already contained in the sacred writings of Freud and that new
ideas are a useless distraction, analysts should support the institutional
changes I advocate: a) a special course for candidates on new ideas, b) efforts
by journal editors to encourage published debate of new ideas as exemplified by
the exchanges in The Journal of Clinical Psychoanalysis, 1994 in response to
Brenner's proposal to dispense with Freud's structural theory.
 
3. Jim quotes me: '...How else can one account for the silence described by
Janet Malcolm other than the fear analysts had (and may still have) of offending
the establishment?'"
 
Jim replies:  "Above is a speculative hypothesis." Jim goes on to quote me:"It
seems to me this fear and its inhibiting effect on scientific debate in
psychoanalysis is the most important issue raised by the Masson controversy."
 
Jim says: "This is a conclusion, treated henceforth as fact, based on your
speculative hypothesis.  The foundation of your argument is rhetorical rather
than logical."
 
I hope Jim will clarify his reasoning.  He is correct that I present a
speculative hypothesis, but what is his basis for concluding that I ever treat
this hypothesis as a "fact"?  The "foundation" of my argument is the
well-accepted inductive principle of inference to the best explanation.  The way
to refute my argument is to present an alternative and more plausible
explanation for the obvious absence of published debate in response to the ideas
of Sandler, Rangell, Brenner, Wallerstein, and many others I could list as
discussed in my Letter to the Editor JAPA 1992 40:1232-5.  Has Jim read Janet
Malcolm's vivid description of the reactions of analysts to Masson prior to the
publicity he received from the New York Times?  I never treat anything as a
"fact" if that means "certain."  All beliefs are fallible, and Malcolm's
description may be seriously distorted.  If so, I would be glad to hear the
evidence.