In this issue of "Learning Disability Quarterly" (LDQ), Professors Daves and Walker reply to my earlier LDQ article on confusion in the cases and commentary about the legal dimension of RTI. In this brief rejoinder, I show that their reply confirms rather than resolves the confusion in their original commentary in 2010. This persistent problem appears to be largely attributable to lack of accuracy and precision in examining and evaluating the law--including the legislation, regulations, court decisions, and administrative rulings--as distinct from the lore--including their particular professional perceptions and recommendations. For example, they confuse the specific scope and requirements for RTI in the IDEA with the more generic, long-standing practice of general education interventions. Indeed, their response inadvertently compounds the confusion by less than careful and complete interpretation and citation of various legal sources.