Discusses the nature, scope, and clarity of both David Tukey's and Jeffery Bineham's claims (presented in previous articles in this issue). Analyzes their exchange from the standpoint of one whose work is being neither attacked nor defended. Evaluates Bineham's critique of Tukey's position, Bineham's own counterargument, and the case study Bineham offers in support of his counterargument. (KEH)