Replying to eight commentaries on my paper submitted by readers of this journal, I address such disparate issues as matters of training and supervision, theories of regression, the analyst's self-states, the patient's vital purpose, complexities of doing for the Other, and the question of what needs to be spoken (interpreted, formulated, declared) explicitly between patient and analyst. I further explore the meaning of my stating to my patient that I would not hug her in our analytic work ahead. And I respond to questions regarding my concept of the paradoxical analytic triangle.