When asking the Editor's approval for responding to the replies to my article it was only with the intention to rectify possible misunderstandings; little did I imagine what unpleasant an exercise this would have to be. For, the first impression I derived from reading these replies was that their impetuosity appears to be out of proportion with the relative mildness of my remarks, which are seen as “a most curious attack” by Bayard & Pisit and as “criticisms” by Solheim. In actual fact they were meant to be neither; but merely an exhortation to ask some questions, albeit maybe slightly embarrassing ones. Contrary to what my three colleagues seem to think, I have no axe to grind and no alternative model to propose, be it my own or that evolved by somebody else; this, I thought, was clearly apparent from my text.