Haimowoods recollections

[From Bill Powers (2002.11.04.0931 MST)]

In an offline conversation with Dick Robertson, I discovered that my
recollection of an incident involving the late Bob MacFarland differs
substantially from Dick's. This happened between 1985 and 1990 at
Haimowoods, when I invited MacFarland to attend our CSG meeting. He was
invited to give a talk, which, in my memory, constituted the "incident" in
question.

Is there anyone out there who was at that meeting and recalls what I am
talking about? In the context of remarks about how I have treated
colleagues from the old VA Researh Hospital days, any comments about this
event would be relevant.

Best,

Bill P.

[David Goldstein (2002.11.04.1825 EST)]

Bill asks:

Is there anyone out there who was at that meeting and recalls what I am
talking about? In the context of remarks about how I have treated
colleagues from the old VA Researh Hospital days, any comments about this
event would be relevant.

I was at these meetings. I seem to remember that you treated him very well
and with a good deal of respect.

Was Bob McFarland the clinical person?

If not, then I am getting mixed up. I am thinking about a person with a
clinical background.

I remember that the person told me that he has been trying to apply the
theory to practical matters for years and found it very hard to apply.

David

···

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Powers" <powers_w@FRONTIER.NET>
To: <CSGNET@listserv.uiuc.edu>
Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 11:37 AM
Subject: Haimowoods recollections

[From Bill Powers (2002.11.04.0931 MST)]

In an offline conversation with Dick Robertson, I discovered that my
recollection of an incident involving the late Bob MacFarland differs
substantially from Dick's. This happened between 1985 and 1990 at
Haimowoods, when I invited MacFarland to attend our CSG meeting. He was
invited to give a talk, which, in my memory, constituted the "incident" in
question.

> Best,

Bill P.

[From Bill Powers (2002.11.04.2237 MST)]

David Goldstein (2002.11.04.1825 EST)--

>I was at these meetings. I seem to remember that you treated him very well

and with a good deal of respect.

Was Bob McFarland the clinical person?

If not, then I am getting mixed up. I am thinking about a person with a
clinical background.

I remember that the person told me that he has been trying to apply the
theory to practical matters for years and found it very hard to apply.

Yes, Bob MacFarland was the Chief Clinical Psychologist at the VA Research
Hospital in Chicago, where he, Clark, and I worked from 1953 until 1960
when I left.

Your recollection isn't quite what I was referring to -- I am wondering
whether anyone recalls the substance of the talk MacFarland gave, or
anything a bit unusual about it. Bill Williams was also at that meeting --
do you recall anything, Bill? I have written to Greg Williams asking if he
recalls anything.

Mary actually found the 14 tapes that Greg Williams made at that meeting,
and the summaries written up afterward by Ed Ford. Ford refers to the fact
that author summaries of the talks are missing for a few presenters,
including MacFarland, which is how we know it was the 1986 meeting he
attended (part of). Unfortunately, either recordings were not being made
during MacFarland's talk, or the parts of tapes where his talk might have
been failed to record (rather large portions of a couple of the tapes are
blank).

Wayne Hershberger was also there but I do not have an email address for him
-- if anyone does, a query to Wayne would be helpful.

I know that 16 years ago is ancient history, but there was something about
MacFarland's talk that both Mary and I remember quite well, but perhaps
only because it related directly to us, or me. If no one else remembers it,
I would hesitate to pursue the matter any further -- it would sound like
paranoia.

Best,

Bill P.

[From Rick Marken (2002.11.05.0920)]

Bill Powers (2002.11.04.2237 MST) --

I am wondering
whether anyone recalls the substance of the talk MacFarland gave, or
anything a bit unusual about it.

I do remember MacFarland giving a talk. But I don't remember much about the
substance of his talk. It seems to me that it was rather rambling and
embarrassing. I knew MacFarland only as one of the co-authors of the 1961
monograph: the first published statement of PCT (as we now know it) that I know
of. I vaguely remember being impressed by his lack of understanding of PCT. But I
wasn't that surprised since I knew that both MacFarland and Clark were there (as
co-authors) mainly to provide some "legitimacy" to ideas developed by a young
fellow with few academic credentials. I also recall sensing some kind of
disgruntlement in MacFarland's attitude. I think I remember him saying to me (or
someone) that he didn't feel like his contribution to the development of PCT was
properly recognized. I, of course, thought that his contribution was properly
recognized, his contribution being that he recognized a great thinker when he saw
one and gave moral and institutional support that made it possible for that
thinker (you) to publish his ideas. But I think he imagined himself to have made
more of a contribution than that. I do have to give McFarland credit, however,
for recognizing PCT as an important idea. For me, it weights in a person's favor
when they show good taste in the ideas for which they want to steal credit.

Best regards

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
The RAND Corporation
PO Box 2138
1700 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138
Tel: 310-393-0411 x7971
Fax: 310-451-7018
E-mail: rmarken@rand.org

[From Bill Williams UMKC 5 November 2002 8:10 AM CST]

[From Bill Powers (2002.11.04.2237 MST)]

Bill,

I have a confession to make. When I quoted you as having bellowed, "Bob shut
up, nobody is interested in what you have to say!" What I had in mind was an
incident at lunch during one of the Durango meetings. And, the person wasn't
Bob McFarland, but instead Bob Clark. When I said, it didn't appear to me that
any harm had resulted, Dick Roberson posted an extended comment concerning a
variety of issues. One of the things upon which Dick considered was a Christmas
card he had received in which Bob McFarland made a comment about his having
been kicked out of CSG. When Dick went on to observe that Bob McFarland could
sometimes be tiresome, a mental cog in my thinking slipped a notch. I didn't
notice that Dick was talking about Bob McFarland not Bob Clark. This was in
part because I have vivid memories of the way in which Bob Clark could create
the illusion that he was sucking the meaning out of life by going on at such
great length about almost nothing. I eventually got to the point where I
thought he might be a comic genius. And, perversely I took to encouraging him.

Clark Somehow, as a result of the talk I gave on aggregate profits being equal
to zero he got the idea that I was a dangerously radical economist a threat to
civiliation itself and he refused to speak to me-- which after the initial
surprize wore off, I thought was extremely funny.

Sorry if as I result of my confusing the two Bob's you unnecesarily spent time
wracking your brain concerning an incident that never happened-- not in
connection with Bob McFarland. Like you say its almost ancient history. But,
there was something that Bob Clark said to me after the lunch at Durrango that
may have some relevance. I'm not sure if it was me or Greg Williams that asked
Clark what he thought about being told to "Shut-up." But, Clark's reply was,
"Oh, Bill's always been that way." You do sometimes adopt a style of
argumentation that is a bit extreme, and sometimes you mix your arguments with
what seem to me to be extraneous person comments, but its a style that I have
after some years very nearly become acustomed to. Being told to "Shut-up"
didn't seem to bother bob Clark in the least bit which was why I said that I
didn't see that any harm was done and was surprized at Dick's comment. While
the extreme style you sometimes adopt doesn't seem to me to be an optimal mode
of argumentation, and I'd rather not be on the receiving end of it, but I'm
prepared now to putup with it. But not everyone can readily adjust to it.

RE: CSGnet input-output
I'm still experiencing variable and sometimes extreme delays in reciving email
from the CSGnet. When CSGnet email arrives my server sometimes files it in
sequence with a previous years email. I don't find it personally to be a
problem, but it may create the impression that I'm ignoring postings.

Cordially yours

Bill Williams

···

______________________________________________________________________
Do you want a free e-mail for life ? Get it at http://www.email.ro/

[From Rick Marken (2002.11.05.1200)]

Bill Powers (2002.11.05.0854 MST)--

I remember little about MacFarland's remarks but this: he described his
work with control theory and with Clark after I left,He said, very roughly,
that he had a lot of experience with applying it. He said that because of
his long clinical experience and his practical grasp of control theory he
was far better qualified to head the CSG that I was, and proposed to take
over the leadership. He also said at some length, working himself into a
little rage, that I had never appreciated his contributions to the theory,
and he concluded, "So fuck off, Powers!"

I suppose that sort of thing, conceivably, might not stick in the memory
of anyone to whom it was not directly addressed, but I am quite surprised
that so far nobody but Mary and I found that little episode remarkable
enough to remember.

I may have missed it because I was not in the room at the time.

Perhaps it was shocking enough to contradict the view
that some held, or thought they should hold, of MacFarland and was
suppressed as a matter of good taste or diplomacy.

I don't think that was it for me. I assumed that MacFarland had contributed little
to the development of PCT before I met him and this assumption was confirmed after
I met him.

I remember saying to
MacFarland, from the back row, that if he wanted to lead the group he was
welcome to try, though I doubted whether they would pay any more attention
to him than they paid to me.

This actually seems familiar but I may be confabulating.

MacFarland said that it was
unlikely that I would ever have another idea as important as that, so it
would be appropriate for him and Clark to take over direction of
developments in feedback theory from here on.

PCT is funny this way. It's an idea that many want to steal (eg. Glasser) but
that few want to buy.

Best regards

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
The RAND Corporation
PO Box 2138
1700 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138
Tel: 310-393-0411 x7971
Fax: 310-451-7018
E-mail: rmarken@rand.org

[From Bill Powers (2002.11.05.0854 MST)]

Bill Williams UMKC 5 November 2002 8:10 AM CST--

>I have a confession to make. When I quoted you as having bellowed, "Bob shut

up, nobody is interested in what you have to say!" What I had in mind was an
incident at lunch during one of the Durango meetings. And, the person wasn't
Bob McFarland, but instead Bob Clark.

Yes, I understood that it was Clark. I am very glad you "have vivid
memories of the way in which Bob Clark could create the illusion that he
was sucking the meaning out of life by going on at such great length about
almost nothing." I had seven years of that five days a week; you had four
days. But even that is not the whole story.

···

  When I said, it didn't appear to me that
any harm had resulted, Dick Roberson posted an extended comment concerning a
variety of issues. One of the things upon which Dick considered was a
Christmas card he had received in which Bob McFarland made a comment about
his having been kicked out of CSG. When Dick went on to observe that Bob
McFarland could sometimes be tiresome, a mental cog in my thinking slipped
a notch. I didn't notice that Dick was talking about Bob McFarland not Bob
Clark.

---------------------
So I suppose you, too, have no recollection of what MacFarland said at
that 1986 Haimowoods meeting. I've heard back from Greg Williams and he has
no record of a _scheduled_ talk by MacFarland, and apparently no personal
memory of any remarks. This sort of supports my feeling that MacFarland
made his remarks during the Wednesday evening session where people
introduced themselves (which is not on tape). It's possible that you and
Greg did not arrive in time for that session, hence the lack of a tape. If
it were not for the fact that Mary, too, remembers the remarks in question,
I would begin to think I was dreaming the whole thing. But no, it really
happened, and it was in character.

I remember little about MacFarland's remarks but this: he described his
work with control theory and with Clark after I left,He said, very roughly,
that he had a lot of experience with applying it. He said that because of
his long clinical experience and his practical grasp of control theory he
was far better qualified to head the CSG that I was, and proposed to take
over the leadership. He also said at some length, working himself into a
little rage, that I had never appreciated his contributions to the theory,
and he concluded, "So fuck off, Powers!"

I suppose that sort of thing, conceivably, might not stick in the memory
of anyone to whom it was not directly addressed, but I am quite surprised
that so far nobody but Mary and I found that little episode remarkable
enough to remember. Perhaps it was shocking enough to contradict the view
that some held, or thought they should hold, of MacFarland and was
suppressed as a matter of good taste or diplomacy. I remember saying to
MacFarland, from the back row, that if he wanted to lead the group he was
welcome to try, though I doubted whether they would pay any more attention
to him than they paid to me. Maybe the lack of a response to his proposal
was what he was referring to when he spoke of being "kicked out of the
CSG." I'm not sure he stayed around for any more of the meeting, because
there do not seem to be any comments from him on the tapes (he lived only
about an hour and a half away). But he certainly was not "kicked out" at
least by me. It's clear he was there, because Ed Ford published summaries
by presenters in the Newsletter we had then, noting that among the
presenters not providing summaries was Bob MacFarland.

This was far from a trivial incident for me, because of a previous incident
with Bob MacFarland 26 years earlier. Clark, MacFarland, and I presented
three coordinated papers at a "Symposium in neural mechanisms, information
theory and behavior" at the V.A. Hospital in Battle Creek, Michigan (I'd
been remembering it as Kalamazoo until I found the Proceedings on a
bookshelf downstairs), The other presenters were M. H. Aprison, Anatol
Rapaport, James Olds, Mary Brazier, and Harry Harlow. Dick Robertson may
have been with us -- I don't recall. It was pretty heady company we had
been keeping, and MacFarland and Clark were jubilant. Well, I was pretty
happy, too.

After the meeting we drove home triumphantly, arriving back in Chicago
early in the morning. I think we had dropped Bob Clark off at the South
Shore railway station to go home to his Park Forest suburb south of
Chicago, or maybe we even took him home. Driving the two of us north on
Canal Street, Bob MacFarland suddenly said that he and Clark had been
talking, and that they agreed that my main contribution to psychology had
been the concept of the reference signal. MacFarland said that it was
unlikely that I would ever have another idea as important as that, so it
would be appropriate for him and Clark to take over direction of
developments in feedback theory from here on. Whether instantly or after a
moment to get over the shock, I told MacFarland to stop the car; I had to
insist before he did. I got out, walked to the train station, and took the
train home. I think. The memory fades out after I got out of the car.

Judging from the dates on the Proceedings, this occurred on the morning of
March 12, 1960. I must have contacted Donald Campbell, whom I knew by that
time, immediately. He must have arranged for my scholarship at
Northwestern's graduate school of psychology right away, for Mary, our
children (including Barbara who was still in progress), and I sold our
house in Rolling
Meadows and moved to Northbrook that summer to be closer to Northwestern,
and I started school in the Fall, along with a part-time job at Dearborn
Observatory to make up somewhat for the loss of income.

That is the story of how I came to depart from the group at the V.A.
Research Hospital in Chicago. It was not, as Dick Robertson was told, to
improve my state economically, nor did I say I would be available for
consulting if needed. I had been completely betrayed by MacFarland and
Clark, and wanted nothing but to get away from them and never see them
again. I didn't see MacFarland again until I was delivering a paper at a
meeting in Denver, some time in the seventies, and spotted MacFarland in
the audience. We said hello and I left. The first time I saw Clark after
1960, I believe, was at the CSG meeting in Durango, in 1990-something. He
had not changed a bit.

At no time did Clark or MacFarland contact me and ask why I had left, or
urge me to return to the fold. I had quite evidently given them what they
wanted. They knew why I had left. I can only hope that they were too
ashamed to face me after that.

Clark and MacFarland have been dead for some years now. De mortuus nil nisi
bonum and all that, but being accused of mistreatimg Clark has given me a
bit of a license to get this off my chest, now that neither man can be
hurt. I'll own up to any transgressions concerning others, but not this
one. Not this one.

Best,

Bill P.

[From Mike Acree (2002.11.05.1336 PST)]

Rick Marken (2002.11.05.1200)--

PCT is funny this way. It's an idea that many want to steal (eg. Glasser) but
that few want to buy.

That's a _very_ good line!

[From Dick Robertson,2002.11.05.1612CST]

William Williams wrote:

[From Bill Williams UMKC 5 November 2002 8:10 AM CST]

> [From Bill Powers (2002.11.04.2237 MST)]
>
Bill,

I have a confession to make. When I quoted you as having bellowed, "Bob shut
up, nobody is interested in what you have to say!" What I had in mind was an
incident at lunch during one of the Durango meetings. And, the person wasn't
Bob McFarland, but instead Bob Clark. When I said, it didn't appear to me that
any harm had resulted, Dick Robertson posted an extended comment concerning a
variety of issues. One of the things upon which Dick considered was a Christmas
card he had received in which Bob McFarland

Oops! That Christmas card was from Bob Clark. And in my previous post on the net
I was simply expressing my grief about the negative interactions that had gone on
between the Bobs and Bill. I have since had a private post from Bill detailing the
unpleasant history--of which I was totally unaware, either because it was really
never played out in my presence, or because I naively distorted any negative
perceptions coming my way because of a desire to hold on to an idealized view of
the beginnings of a great scienctific development.

It now strikes me as odd that I might ever have had illusions about the purity of
scientic collaboration, given that I see myself as one who has hinted a number of
times that personal politics have inevitably underlain many of the debates on
CSGnet, as we all, in various ways, seek not only the truth about nature, but also
some degree of self enhancement, appreciation, dominance, etc., at the same time.

When Dick went on to observe that Bob McFarland

No, I meant Bob Clark, and I thought I said so.

I didn't notice that Dick was talking about Bob McFarland not Bob Clark.

What you noticed the first time was right, Bill.

This was in part because I have vivid memories of the way in which Bob Clark
could create the illusion that he was sucking the meaning out of life by going on
at such great length about almost nothing. I eventually got to the point where I
thought he might be a comic genius. And, perversely I took to encouraging him.

I know what you mean there and I said so. I also was saying, however, that I was
sorry about it. I did have a debt of gratitude to both Bobs, because they found
consultant money for me to stay at VA Research a day a week and learn control
theory for two years after my Ph. D., and to run the experiment that Bill P. had
left behind--the one that later became my Percpt and Motor Skills paper after Bill
helped me modernize it by progrmming it for computer.

As I mentioned to Bill in a private post, I never heard his name disparaged by the
two Bobs while I worked with them: either because it didn't happen in my presence,
or because I misperceived any such hints as merely bitching among partners-- maybe
because of an illusion for which I wanted to keep perceiving evidence stemming from
a system-concenpt about the holiness of science.

Clark Somehow, as a result of the talk I gave on aggregate profits being equal
to zero he got the idea that I was a dangerously radical economist a threat to
civiliation itself and he refused to speak to me-- which after the initial
surprize wore off, I thought was extremely funny.

Another shock to my illusions.

But, there was something that Bob Clark said to me after the lunch at Durrango
that
may have some relevance. I'm not sure if it was me or Greg Williams that asked
Clark what he thought about being told to "Shut-up." But, Clark's reply was,
"Oh, Bill's always been that way." You do sometimes adopt a style of
argumentation that is a bit extreme, and sometimes you mix your arguments with
what seem to me to be extraneous person comments, but its a style that I have
after some years very nearly become acustomed to. Being told to "Shut-up"
didn't seem to bother bob Clark in the least bit which was why I said that I
didn't see that any harm was done and was surprized at Dick's comment.

I hope I have cleared up some of all that.

Best, Dick R.

···

[From Bill Williams UMKC 5 September 2002 8:00 PM CST]

[From Bill Powers (2002.11.05.0854 MST)]

"The WHole Story."

First, my memory of Bob McFarland at Haimowoods is of him making inflated
claims regarding his contribution. But, I wasn't that interested in clinical
issues which was what I understood him to be primarily interested in. I also
remember him having made an unusual and contentensious remark at the end of his
presentation-- but not what he said.

What Bill Powers has to say about the two Bob's doesn't leave much wiggle room
for an idealistic conception of science. And, it makes a huge change in my
perception of the situation. I am not surprized that I wasn't aware of the
"whole story," but I am very surprized that Dick Robertson who was there at the
beginnning was also comparatively unaware of the true character of the
relationship.

Clark and MacFarland have been dead for some years now. De mortuus nil nisi
bonum and all that, but being accused of mistreatimg Clark has given me a
bit of a license to get this off my chest, now that neither man can be
hurt.

What I saw was a tall, large younger very angry man speaking in an emphatic and
course an almost threating way to a smaller much older man. Based upon what I
knew, there did not appear to me to be justification for what you said or the
way that you said it. Given a similiar situation, I would still maintain that
being a bore would not by itself justify what you said and the manner in which
you said it. As a consequence I have mistakenly viewed you as being inclined to
excessive reactions in "response" to difficult but otherwise innocuous
behavior. I'm happy to be proven mistaken. It makes a change in who I think
your are. Given the way you had been treated by the two Bob's puts an entirely
different light on the situation that I saw.

When you told Bob Clark to shut-up, I didn't say anything. In retrospect I've
thought that I ought to have protested, but didn't partly out of surprize and
partly out of not having thought out what was the responsible thing to do in
such a situation, I didn't do anything. When I've had the time to think about
it, I have at some risk to myself backed up a store manager who was being
threatened by some drunken thugs. So, its not I think a matter of cowardice of
whatever sort but rather a matter of being insufficiently mature in my thinking
about the ethics of the situation to make a prompt choice about what to do that
resulted in my being passive. I wonder, what do you think is the proper thing
for a bystander to do when a smaller, older, somewhat frail man is being
confronted by a larger, younger very angry man? (I am not at all saying that
what you did amounted to anything remotely approaching a physical threat, but
you were obviously extremely angry and acting in a way that verged upon
physical intimidation.)

Cordially yours

  Bill Williams

···

______________________________________________________________________
Do you want a free e-mail for life ? Get it at http://www.email.ro/

[From Rick Marken (2002.11.06.0840)]

Dick Robertson (2002.11.05.1612CST) --

It now strikes me as odd that I might ever have had illusions about the purity

of

scientic collaboration, given that I see myself as one who has hinted a number

of

times that personal politics have inevitably underlain many of the debates on
CSGnet, as we all, in various ways, seek not only the truth about nature, but

also

some degree of self enhancement, appreciation, dominance, etc., at the same

time.

I don't know if I've ever had illusions about the purity of science but any hope
for such illusions were certainly dashed soon after I started doing research on
purposeful behavior. I found, when presenting my research or trying to publish
papers, that Bacon's "Idols o the Mind" are still worshipped in the halls of
behavioral science. Particularly the "Idols of the Theater"; ideas that are
considered "right" (worshipped) simply because they are propounded by an
_authority_. The wonderful thing about CSGNet, it seems to me, is that there is
refreshingly little of this kind of idol worship, at least among PCT researchers.
A good PCT researcher doesn't even worship the idol of PCT itself; research on PCT
is based on skepticism about the merits of PCT itself!

One of the things I've liked best about doing PCT science is that it's only been
about the science. I've seen very little "self enhancement...and dominance", at
least among PCT researchers. I think this is because PCT science is so far out of
the running in terms of becoming an accepted "authority" point of view in
behavioral science that there is no pay-off for non-scientific approaches to
making one's point, such as through "self enhancement" or "dominance". I have
seen "appreciation" expressed on CSGNet (I've been one of those expressing it),
such as the appreciation expressed to Bill Powers for developing PCT. But I don't
see such appreciation as an effort to idolize Powers and turn him into an
authority. Such appreciation certainly carries no weight in the larger, behavioral
science community where it might give one the clout of authority. But on CSGNet I
see appreciation as just that; a polite recognition of an intellectual
achievement, which some of us are having the fun of putting to the test.

Science is not perfect and it never will be because it is done by us imperfect
humans. But in the behavioral sciences (and in my experience) I would say that
the ideal of scientific "purity" is approached most closely by those of us who are
doing PCT science.

Best regards

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken, Ph.D.
The RAND Corporation
PO Box 2138
1700 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138
Tel: 310-393-0411 x7971
Fax: 310-451-7018
E-mail: rmarken@rand.org

[From Bill Powers (2002.11.06.1142 MST)]

From Bill Williams:
>What I saw was a tall, large younger very angry man speaking in an
emphatic and >course an almost threating way to a smaller much older man.

Well, thanks for that, but I think Clark had me by only about 8 years, and
he was built like an ox. I suggest that memory has a way of exaggerating
differences which would not have seemed so large at the time.

Anyway, I appreciate your change of view.

It takes a lot to lead me to an angry verbal attack on anyone, as I hope
most people who know me would agree. I usually wish I hadn't, afterward.
Also, you can be sure that I have a sense of ethics. I don't talk about it
much, since that can too easily be a way to have your cake and eat it, too
-- for example, the politician who says in public "I am too ethical to
speak publicly about my opponent's mental health problems".

One reason that people have formed false opinions about my relations with
Clark and MacFarland is that I never blamed them publicly (save to a few
very close friends like Mary) for any of my problems. This wasn't entirely
a matter of ethics; it seemed to me that if I complained, that would be
like letting them defeat me. I couldn't let it seem (especially to myself)
that they had driven me away from my life's work. It did take some years
for me to get back into developing the theory further and writing the book
-- B:CP was finally published 13 years after the break. In part, at first,
I was waiting to see what Clark and MacFarland would do once they had
complete control over the development of "feedback theory." They didn't
seem to get very far, which gave me a nasty sort of pleasure, in addition
to restoring a bit of self-confidence. I didn't really believe MacFarland
when he said I would probably not produce anything new to equal what I had
already done, but on the other hand, it might have been true. A burnout at
the age of 34? It's happened before.

Some people have been critical of me for not having mentioned Clark and
MacFarland at all in B:CP (except as part of a reference). I hope it is
evident now that this omission was a mark of restraint, not of ingratitude.
I have kept silent many times when their names came up.

I have shed something of a burden with this exchange, and would like to
leave it behind now. The men are dead, and I am still alive and
functioning, so I have the better end of it.

Best,

Bill P.