I applaud the journal's publication of Pryke's reply and appreciate the invitation to respond. Whether or not readers agree with our article, Pryke's response suggests that the piece fulfilled our purpose of provoking discussion. Pryke's comment is even-handed, perceptive and does an excellent job of highlighting the issues and indeed the hazards of pursuing this intellectual Loch Ness Monster. While disagreeing on many points, he and we are in fact much closer than he implies.