I've decided to add this p.s. to my letter because it describes a consistent general pattern. It's a pattern that Rob pointed out, and I'd like to say a little more about it. First, let me say that this letter is going to be divided into a number of short messages, because there's a computer fault of some kind that is sometimes locking the keyboard from time to time, and the shorter the messages, the less time I lose when that happens. I emphasize that these messages are all part of 1 single p.s., not a series of separate decisions to say more. Here's the pattern: If you disagree with Don, & especially if Don feels that you've said so in strong terms, or emphatic or critical terms, that means, to Don, that you're defensive, and that Don must be close to the truth. The irony is that when Don has been making an ass out of himself for a long time, re-stating the same old oft-refuted arguments, people do get a little critical, or emphatic in their disagreement. This, as I said, tells Don that he's found a "chink in the armor" (or whatever that day's metaphor is), and that he's got you on the run, because he's close to the truth, and has found your vulnerability. This is a remarkable ability to fantasise victory. I must mail this now, but will write several more installments. Mike --
