For the most part, the responses to the special section were disappointing because they lacked substantive content. Only Benjamin, Mitchell, and Stolorow seem to have made an effort to engage the issues in a scholarly manner. Many of the respondents tended to prefer insult, vagueness, and indignation over a scholarly examination of the issues. This made it difficult to respond to those authors' critiques. Where possible, specific issues are addressed. The author remains committed to his understanding of certain general differences between analysis as it is practiced by relational and by contemporary structural analysts. These differences tend to originate in different theories of pathogenesis. It is hoped that further debate will more fruitfully examine these differences with a goal of ultimately arriving at a more integrative theory.