Not really very much.
As for what I conceded: it's about the stuff on p. 91 of TES. John wrote and pointed out that what I said there about him was wrong -- that he does not make responsibility "fundamentally dependent on the overt act," and he does accept the point made by Kant, and affirmed at the bottom of that page. I went back and re-read the relevant section in his book (The Metaphysics of Free Will), and I saw that he was right, so I admitted as much. I never agreed that the Frankfurt examples are successful. And as I wrote earlier, I'm with you on the "flicker" issue.