In my paper Patterns of Pronoun Case Error (Rispoli, 1998b), I documented two aspects of pronoun case errors arising out of principles of lexical retrieval that are operative during the acquisition of the word specific pronoun case paradigms of English. The two aspects were; (a) the ‘double-cell effect,’ a supercharging of the her for she error rate; and (b) the ‘antagonism’ between the stereotypic objective for nominative replacement (e.g. him for he) and the rarer nominative overextensions (e.g. he for him/his). In my response, I shall address Schütze's criticisms in both of these areas. The response begins by addressing issues surrounding the double-cell effect. It then moves to issues surrounding antagonism.