Others limit rationality, no me. I cannot understand why I have been accused as I have been. In my defence, because I was caught off-guard, I listed all kinds of subjective preferences, which, to be fair, I thought would be sufficient given the standing of my central accuser. It wasn't until I was confronted with wider consequences, and the image of your department came more clearly into view, that I realised that I have to go further. It isn't that I've performed some kind of demeaning volte-face, as some have suggested on postings I've seen elsewhere on this god-forsaken site; I've altered not one representation, nor have I realigned any practical goal, nor, indeed, have I been imprecise in my calculations. My preliminary definitions hold. The arguments against me are all about process and achieving a workable consensus concerning what process itself means. Whilst I recognise the validity of claims associated with this key paradigm shift, their emphasis upon conceptual assumptions, claimed as implicit, shared and imminent, is utterly meaningless. Perhaps, by dint of pure authority, you will judge me negatively, and in so doing exclude me for the work I have been doing, faithfully, for over twelve years. I know the truth, however, and I will neither confess nor be silent for your convenience.