This article is the author's reply to the Burke, Emmerich, and Ingram response to his critique of the notions of '"institutional habitus" and "family habitus" in the sociology of education. It begins by welcoming the work done by the threesome to distance themselves from some of the clumsier uses of the terms in previous research but then, via a revisiting of the three fatal flaws underscored in the original paper, the author points out that the processes and themes supposedly spotlighted by the new concepts have already been named and conceived by Bourdieu but much more clearly and coherently. Finally, he critiques the threesome's strategy of positioning themselves and their misapprehension of Bourdieu as a gallant heterodoxy compared to the crude and uncritical orthodoxy that his own efforts supposedly represent. The author concludes that Burke, Emmerich, and Ingram have done little more than outline in an inferior vocabulary, still tangling with prenotions and muddying the waters, the same phenomena that he ?agged. If Burke, Emmerich, and Ingram, and those who wish to continue to use the terms "institutional" or "family habitus," are not to look stubborn or blase in their research, it is now incumbent upon them, the author argues, to make clear why their favoured notions are advances over doxa (school ethos, family spirit, etc.), mystery of ministry, or other existing concepts. (Contains 8 notes.)