After twenty years in pursuit of a larger truth, there is not a question here about personal sincerity. The question is about the seriousness of the issues I am raising.

Obviously I have convinced myself of their seriousness, but my correspondents remain more diffident. Why is this? Do they see a flaw in the ideas? Are they too polite to point out the error of my ways? This does not appear to be the case.

More to the point is that my vision, if it is to be taken seriously, is earthshaking. Most people are not disposed to rock the boat, and particularly not one as large as the earth. They have a legitimate concern that if they lend any credence to this set of ideas then they will become participants.

I recognize that I am necessarily putting my correspondents on the spot, but I do attempt to minimize their exposure to the flak that will inevitably come this way. When the stuff does hit the fan each of them can say that they were merely being polite to a stranger. They were merely humoring someone who might otherwise have let the air out of their tires. The fact that some of their colleagues were less polite does not argue for their own complicity, it only proves that my tire slashing proclivities were overrated.

After having established everyone's innocence but my own, I can then reiterate that no news is good news. If I have given my correspondents ample opportunity to refute anything I have said and none is forthcoming, then there is only one conclusion to draw under the circumstances.

The situation is serious.

| Contents |

rev. 2/9/98