This article presents a reply to the response made by Carl Binder that was critical of the authors' review of rate-building procedures. For the most part, the authors were disappointed in Binder's reply because they believe it muddied the focus of their review: an examination of the "experimental" evidence for the procedures used and suggested by the field of precision teaching. Binder did not provide examples of experimental evidence; instead he provided a lucid argument from an authority on precision teaching. The authors' goal for the review was to provide readers with the evidence and to suggest further experimentation. In this light, the authors would like to comment on a few of the problems Binder found with the review so that future research can be encouraged on these important educational issues. Their comments focus on points made by Binder that they found confusing or misleading. Throughout, however, they describe points of agreement and end on a constructive note.