I must admit, I had assumed that you had simply been too busy to read the paper yourself, and were relying exclusively on the referees' reports, as is (I suspect) the standard practice of busy editors. I fancied you as a trans-paradigmatic thinker yourself. Your paper on the "symbol grounding problem" was a masterful refutation of the naively simplistic propositional paradigm of the AI movement, so I thought that you, of all people, would understand my critique of naive realism once you got around to actually reading it yourself. For although you trashed the propositional paradigm, at least as a model of perception, nobody has yet come up with a realistic alternative that avoids the "symbol grounding problem." I really thought that you would recognize my spatial modeling of spatial experience as a promising approach to exactly that end. Have I been mistaken?