Because then it would have replied—­and that is really what a Reply is for.  Broadly speaking, its function is to refute—­as you will easily concede.  That leaves something for the other person to take hold of:  he has a chance to reply to the Reply, he has a chance to refute the refutation.  This would have happened if you had written it out instead of dictating.  Dictating is nearly sure to unconcentrate the dictator’s mind, when he is out of practice, confuse him, and betray him into using one set of literary rules when he ought to use a quite different set.  Often it betrays him into employing the rules for conversation between A shouter and A deaf person—­as in the present case—­when he ought to employ the rules for conducting discussion with A fault-finder.  The great foundation-rule and basic principle of discussion with a fault-finder is relevancy and concentration upon the subject; whereas the great foundation-rule and basic principle governing conversation between a shouter and a deaf person is irrelevancy and persistent desertion of the topic in hand.  If I may be allowed to illustrate by quoting example IV., section from chapter ix. of “Revised Rules for Conducting Conversation between a Shouter and a Deaf Person,” it will assist us in getting a clear idea of the difference between the two sets of rules: 

Shouter.  Did you say his name is Wetherby?

Deaf Person.  Change?  Yes, I think it will.  Though if it should clear off I—­

Shouter.  It’s his name I want—­his name.

Deaf Person.  Maybe so, maybe so; but it will only be a shower, I think.

Shouter.  No, no, no!—­you have quite misunderSTOOD me.  If—­

Deaf Person.  Ah!  Good morning; I am sorry you must go.  But call again, and let me continue to be of assistance to you in every way I can.

You see it is a perfect kodak of the article you have dictated.  It is really curious and interesting when you come to compare it with yours; in detail, with my former article to which it is a Reply in your hand.  I talk twelve pages about your American instruction projects, and your doubtful scientific system, and your painstaking classification of nonexistent things, and your diligence and zeal and sincerity, and your disloyal attitude towards anecdotes, and your undue reverence for unsafe statistics and far facts that lack a pedigree; and you turn around and come back at me with eight pages of weather.

I do not see how a person can act so.  It is good of you to repeat, with change of language, in the bulk of your rejoinder, so much of my own article, and adopt my sentiments, and make them over, and put new buttons on; and I like the compliment, and am frank to say so; but agreeing with a person cripples controversy and ought not to be allowed.  It is weather; and of almost the worst sort.  It pleases me greatly to hear you discourse with such approval and expansiveness upon my text: