ABSTRACT
The preceding chapters have raised a number of thought-provoking issues for our consideration. We thank the authors of those chapters for extending the arguments we made, pointing out places where we omitted discussion of processes that are important in their own right, and sometimes gently suggesting that the ideas we presented might not be quite as useful as we seem to think they are. In this reply, we attend mostly to points of disagreement expressed in those chapters. We take this opportunity to clarify some misimpressions we left in the initial chapter (and one outright error), as well as to point to a few conceptual themes that go beyond those we presented earlier.
