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.