1. I did not "admit" that any claims I made about cause and effect relationships were inaccurate. I stand by everything; items of low relevancy were pruned as in all essays -- but to say so is not an admission of inaccuracy. I don't know, maybe it's something about our backgrounds. I also write on several complex scientific topics where the unfocused acknowledgment of every corresponding influence, no matter how minor its contribution is, in every single article isn't reasonable and isn't expected.

2. You now claim you don't comment on my worldview. Actually you seem to say quite a bit based on pretended knowledge of the inner workings of my mind. For example "you (have)selectively filtered out all of the aspects of history that don't agree with (your) conclusion and presented only those that do." [By the way, though you have listed factors you think were omitted, you've said nothing about how any of these might contradict my thesis ... in other words, your criticisms so far have been diffuse and causally insubstantial. Instead of merely attacking my practices, why don't you try to formulate the operative reality of the situation in a pithy essay of similar length? Then people will actually be able to see if you have a valid point or are merely on a digression, as I think you are.]. And then you say "It is easy to construct a world view based on only the evidence that backs it up. But doing so is dishonest." Am I to believe that this ostensible generality isn't intended as a comment on my internal construction of a world view? Surely no one could snake their way past that implication.

You comment on my worldview or insinuate ever so close to it, and then say you don't. You apologize for calling me dishonest and then call me dishonest, and then apologize again, and then call me dishonest again. You say I haven't put things together properly but then compose no alternative picture. This to me is the poorest possible quality of criticism and I have no idea what to make of it all.

Even the things that you say are omitted by my essay are often included. For example, I say "In the 1970’s and later... large numbers of people began to publish the pain of their unwanted or retrospectively rejected childhood sex experiences, and the topic of childhood sexual abuse became very popular with authors and movie-makers. People were horrified (and also addictively scandal-titillated) by all these stories of personality damage done by the invasion of bodily privacy. There was a reaction."

Now you say that I have omitted "the rise of militant feminism and its view of sex as a weapon of violence; the rise of militant abuse survivors and lobbying against things like child pornography with made up statistics and shady observations."

Now, to me, the items you say are omitted are actually sufficiently acknowledged, for the purposes of my essay, by my passage. The explosion of child sexual abuse and incest literature was almost entirely the product of feminism and it fed, and was fed by, the trend you refer to with the right-wing cliche "militant feminism." When I say, "there was a reaction," the items you refer to such as the campaign of falsified data against cp are included, though not individually detailed, in that statement. The main difference between our formulations is that I accord the feminists some degree of reasonable behavior (reaction to actual hideous, violent sexual abuse that took place abundantly) whereas you portray them as purely malevolent. But that's merely a difference of opinion: specifically, you seem to be much more politically conservative than I am.

It really seems to me that you will continue to call me dishonest unless I mirror the exact contents of your mind in the exact terms you would use. Well, use your terms yourself to redescribe the situation and let people judge for themselves.

The truth shall set us free.