This article presents the author's rejoinder to thinking about linking from issue 8(1). Particularly within the more embracing linking frameworks, e.g., Holland & Dorans (2006) and Holland (2007), there appears to be a major disjunction between (1) classification discourse: the supposed basis for classification, that is, the underlying theory of comparability; and (2) classification practice: the framework contents. The classification discourse is characterized by a continuum-deficit rhetoric, in which equating is the paradigm for understanding linking, and linking relationships are characterized in terms of how far they depart from the pinnacle of linking: equating. The linking relationship continuum runs from equating, to approximate equating (including grades thereof), to not-even-approximate-equating and, therefore, not linking. The classification discourse, therefore, has no conceptual space for linking relationships that fail even to approximate equating. Classification practice, on the other hand, tends to be more embracing, accommodating techniques that can be applied in contexts not remotely like equating, for instance, battery and anchor scaling, when standards are linked across tests of radically different domains. How, then, are we to understand linking relationships that clearly do not approximate equating? There are two possibilities: Either we broaden our conceptual framework or we banish extreme forms of linking.