One always writes a paper on the assumiiption that a certain background knowledge of principles is shared by the reader. When this is not the case, commnunication can become very protracted, and when there is the kind of imperviousness to understanding that is revealed in the comment bv Richard Fullenbaum, Ernest Carlson, and Frederick Bell (FCB), colmnunication may be inmpossible. But I will do what I can in this reply to explicate those aspects of mn original paper, with which FCB are having difficulties.