This paper provides responses to the contributions of Eugenia Macias and Yuri Escalante. Although it is impossible to cover them all, it does offers some insights into Macias' comments, including: 1.- the possible over-simplification of Brandi's theory of restoration in Mexico; 2.- the relevance of an author within the development of a contemporary theory of conservation, which highlights the needs of sacred heritage objects' users; 3.- the hegemony that institutional conservators can instill on the social discourse of such users; and 4.- the multiplicity of social houses that those users build. This text also poses a single answer concerning Escalante's points of view: the need for rules, or not, for conservation-restoration practice and theory. It concludes emphasizing on the similarities of concerns and discourses between different fields of knowledge that would seem apparently isolated, and which promote not only interdisciplinary endeavors, but also the possibility of creating a common discourse.