Please forward this to the Forum; I don't know how myself. It is clear that Mr. Dagnall is confused about my work on Mark Twain. He has not read the paper he criticises, else his references would be more correct and precise; his allegation that my hypothesis relies on minimal evidence or shoddy scholarship consequently deserves no mention. The only revealing comment Mr. Dagnall has made is that he sees my argument that SLC might have had homosexual relationships as an attack on Mark Twain. Where is the attack, unless same-sex experimentation is a crime, a sign or moral weakness or a character flaw? I certainly intended no attack on Clemens, and made none. My goal has always been to offer a reasonable alternative view of an aspect of Twain's biography in which hard evidence is lacking. We could, of course, decide as scholars to say absolutely nothing we could not prove, but that would silence most of the humanities. No one knows what sexual conduct to attribute to Sam Clemens during his Western years. My hypothesis might be entirely wrong, but a solid share of responsible scholars of Twain, 19th cent. America and the American West don't think so. I have also yet to read or see arguments against my evidence. Against my hypothesis, plenty of course. And against me too. I don't mind that. But I do wonder if the Mark Twain Forum ought to allow ad hominem arguments to fly between its subscribers. I still believe the hypothesis -- since the truth remains unknowable, such qualifiers are necessary, however mealy-mouthed they appear -- is the best construct we ca n make of MT's sexual behavior out West. What interpretation of Clemens' relationship with Charles Warren Stoddard in the winter of 1873-4 in London makes the most sense to Forum subscribers? This is not a trick question; only thorough research can lead to any conclusion at all. For those of you most disturbed by my hypothesis, the research will be most rewarding. Andy Hoffman