We have read the responses to our paper on microwear methodology (see * 2AATA<b> 23-1961</b> and<b> 25-2511</b>) with considerable interest and would like to respond to some of the points raised by Moss, Hurcombe and Bamforth. In general, we found that these authors have missed the main points of our paper, namely that blind testing is a useful way to develop microwear methodology and that the now general assumption that contact between flint and specific worked materials produces diagnostic polishes is very suspect. None of the authors report new test results or cite other new evidence in support of the * 2types*1 of polish which Keeley and his followers postulate (Kelley, 1980). -- AATA