This paper presents the authors' critique on "Clarifying the Consensus Definition of Validity" by Paul E. Newton (this issue). There are serious differences of opinion regarding the topic of validity. Newton is aware of these differences, as made clear by his choice of references and particularly his effort to respond to the various Borsboom papers. Beyond some introductory remarks, the authors limit their brief reactions to three points. The first has to do with Rubin, Stuart, and Zanutto's (2004) emphasis upon theory as a necessary ingredient for more-abstract test validity. This is consistent with the original Cronbach and Meehl (1955) paper and its emphasis on the nomological network that captures the importance of theory inherent to many considerations of validity. The second has to do with the implications of the Evidence Centered Design work that emphasizes how an appropriate linkage between desired score interpretations and uses, the measurement procedure and a hypothesized student model need to be made prior to test development and deployment so that claims about student competency will be deemed valid. Finally, the third point they raise has to do with the conceptual distinction between reliability and validity, which the authors believe has become somewhat clouded.