<p>I assume that you’re talking about this statement:</p>
<p>“You suddenly seized upon our statements and painted us as curiously dogmatic freaks who think that ‘teeny tinies’ are universally superior to Harvard.”</p>
<p>Let’s look again at what you said:</p>
<p>“In any case, what I find amusing in these standard and predictable attacks by advocates for teeny tinies and other schools with less eminment faculties is their dogged faith in the notion that distinguished scholars are not good teachers, and that, on the contrary, mediocre scholars are uniformly excellent teachers!”</p>
<p>You noted our “standard and predictable attacks” and “dogged faith” in a seemingly ridiculous proposition. It sure sounds like you were painting us as “curiously dogmatic freaks” - I don’t think that was an unjustified statement. </p>
<p>Further, you note the “less eminent” faculties of apparently lesser universities and remark that we believe that “mediocre scholars are uniformly excellent teachers”. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth, but following your train of thought, we have:</p>
<p>1) “Teeny tinies” have “less eminent” faculties consisting of mainly mediocre scholars.</p>
<p>2) We believe that mediocre scholars are universally better teachers than distinguished scholars.</p>
<p>Considering that you used the word “universally” (a pretty extreme word, and almost inevitably a mischaracterization), your truly bizarre implication was that we believe that these small colleges, held together by the sheer mediocrity of their teachers, are universally superior to places like Harvard. I wasn’t twisting your words at all.</p>