The limits of my presentation were clear to me ? I wrote the blurb and paper after all and yes, you are oversimplifying. With regards to the content and your dismissal of its relevance, I made it clear as I read that my perception of the format had changed; that I felt uneasy about the technophilic overtones of my blurb. I shared an opinion about the format based on what I noticed, based on where I am in the world, and where I teach. There is, among students, an inherent resistance to language that makes stylistic control and thousands of glyphs a minor (not useless) concern. I made this assessment after having taught typography courses in which literacy is itself undervalued. This is what needs to be addressed and it is the thing to which I have devoted my time. Resonant typography is only partly the result of tools. It is a commitment to language and to the manner in which it is dispersed. OpenType is a means to an end. It is not typography and I framed this argument by discussing the work of Noordzij, Smeijers, and Underware who have defined the discipline and have proven to be exemplars of literacy in the broadest sense. I discussed the format in terms of history, education, craft, and the negotiability of meaning. That meaning and language are in constant flux raises questions about the mandate to issue ?authentic? typefaces with enormous character sets. Advanced stylistic control is a convenience I appreciate but don?t encyclopedic typefaces exceed the demands of average users? Why are type designers compelled to make OpenType fonts? It strikes me as odd that we?ll be left with no choice but to buy and use such fonts when they?re a lot more work and more costly. Who?s really benefiting from this transition? Typefaces are instruments ? I?m much more concerned about how we instruct students to use them. I felt obliged to appraise the format in terms of my milieu and, if context is everything, your remark about my ability to present is as distorted as it is petty. You intimate that I am less a teacher for my ?flawed delivery? and your forgiveness a favor you deign to grant. (Please? If I needed it, I?d have asked for it!) Besides, I did not present as a teacher. The choice to read my paper and to show what I showed (artsy is right), for better or worse, was determined by what I believed to be appropriate at that time. Cramped as the space was, sitting behind a desk seemed the only choice! While I wish I could have gathered my thoughts speedily enough to offer my audience more palatable answers, I wonder if your comments are really a matter of preference as opposed to relevance? My paper was substantially edited, though its dissertational quality proved irreducible. I was convinced that such a format ? lengthy and even pedantic ? fit the venue and if you hated my presentation, you could have walked out. I?d be disappointed to know that my listeners needed entertaining. Were they not comprised of typographers, type designers, and graphic designers? And isn?t typography analogous to patience?