Yes, this passage of yours in particular:

"However, I think people should be aware of what is going on now, [...] the
trend in top journals for some time now has been towards empirical work,
with theory there but underplayed.  And, also in the more widely read top
journals the more purely theoretical papers are likely to have a lower ratio
of equations to pure verbiage than in the past.  Such papers are now
expected to provide more explanation for people unable to follow or
penetrate the mathematical arguments than was expected in the fairly recent
past."

My feeling is that you're right, but I am not sure WHY this is happening and
IF this really signals that these economists are healing from the
Samuelsonian disease. My suspect is that they do not always fully realize
(the implications of) the kind of math that underlies their statements,
regardless of their expressing them verbally, or statistically, or
experimentally. 
Maybe you or Roy Weintraub would disagree with me, but I think that, for
example, both orthodox finance and DSGE models are still imbued with the
same kind of "formalism" (in quotes, to be used only as a shorthand) of
1950s/1960s general equilibrium theory. Do finance & DSGE guys still view
mathematicians as their role model for what a "good scientist" does? 

Old story, anyway. And not exactly the topic about models that had been
raised originally by recalling Mark Blaug's quote (for which Mary Morgan's
book is a must read). So, my apologize for contributing to lead the
discussion astray (and for using only "John", of course).   

Nicola Giocoli