£2 wu ask re why 1 did not sce thio before the anotwcr -O 
nuh prolably neony readers as you and ~yoelf have been inclined 
so oco in the use of finicet differences bh: bkplecki a natter of form, 
but it woo in fact o natter of substance. I think: this removes 
sha baois of our criticien of his trend ergunmento. I noy neation 
that oh one tie I srrvedl the idea that o trend sho 1d be rencrated 
it cnt teehnole tied i movaticns, but I hove come to the conclusi. no 
shat I wos urens. There ic no Joubt, however, ho totic dis tie 
cot difficult part of Haleckin arguments , and the cxolena ion of 
thio trond leaves uel to be lane. 
ars sincerely,