In my reply to Likierman and Ellman, I remark on the difficulty of responding accurately to written case material. I underline some problems resulting from the necessarily abbreviated information contained in even the most carefully constructed and detailed presentations. Using the responses to my Richard paper, I attempt to show that in the absence of complete information, respondents tend to substitute their own imaginative assumptions for missed or incomplete information. They also tend to borrow from preferred theory to organize these assumptions as well as the conclusions that follow. Like unmarked wind currents, these tendencies can carry discussions far off the author's intended course.