Before I begin to respond, I do want to be very clear. My question about what under- and over-mining is, was an honest one. I do not ask questions or be critical to score points, which would not benefit me anyway. I also did not address it to anyone in particular, despite what Harman says.
When Harman kindly answers my question--thank you sir--I am not implying that he is "attempting to conceal my [his] sources." It was an open question, and it has become less obvious what the answer might be given the seemingly increasing divergence of the OOO field. I do not think that "classical" should be considered a derogatory term, by the way, especially since I am a specialist in classical, neoclassical, and neo-pragmatism. I have been somewhat critical of Harman per what seems to be an absolutist concept of withdrawal and thus my preference for Levi's, but I leave detailed criticisms to OOO scholars. They have supplied commentary, and I am thankful that some of my concerns and educated opinions were not entirely inaccurate.
Finally, I really wish that Harman and Levi would realize that I do not share many of Leon's opinions or the bad blood between them. I suspect those prior feuds have lead to months of misinterpreting my intentions and to posts such as Harmans, which presumes that I was talking about him. It saddens me really. Consider this a reaching out, gentlemen.