Penny Thompson's "reply" to the author's article (Doble, 2005) briefly tells readers that for an answer to some of the author's queries, readers may turn to her book; for the rest, she proposes to take "the argument" further. One of the problems with her earlier article was that it had no discernible argument, so it is not easy to see how it may be taken further. Instead of "argument", Thompson has inverted the process of critique: her "reply" attempts a critique whose norm is Thompson's own position and whose process is that of summarising my position; both norm and process demand comment. In this article, the author provides his rejoinder to the points raised by Thompson in response to the author's critique of her article. (Contains 3 notes.)