I'm thinking about your reply. I admit I'm surprised: I would have
figured the numbers had increased. Mustn't have felt very good to
take risks and have the numbers dwindle like that; being "punished"
with relative obscurity for doing right -- Hmmm. Maybe, though, this
development could serve as a spur to encourage you to let those who
are interested in psychohistory but are not those who would push the
discipline where it really ought to and could go, go. (I wonder if
some of your interpretations of America's current situation could be
presented so that mags like McSweeney would draw their readers'
attention to it. I think your “Reagan's America” one of the most
interesting and fun works I've ever read. Something like that done
for the current four year cycle, maybe . . . ) In any case, maybe this discussion group could continue to do some
real good that'll draw in some of those who've had it with it with
tentative bullshit from those ...