Given the psychometric focus of this journal and of my paper, it is stimulating to have the comments of two experts in psychonomically oriented response time modeling who do make an explicit distinction between person and item parameters. Let me first of all express my gratitude for their thorough comments on my paper, and my agreement with several of their suggestions. I will of course elaborate on points of disagreement. Rouder (2005) focuses on my restriction to a lognormal RT model with two parameters, a scale parameter μ and a shape parameter σ , of which only the first one is treated as a function of person and item characteristics. A shift parameter is lacking and Rouder gives an example and references to show the need for such a parameter. With respect to the shape parameter, my focus on the scale parameter may have created a misunderstanding that the shape parameter was restricted to be the same for all persons and items. I did explore effects of angle and same/different on σ , the within-subject variance of the log RT, by allowing their regression parameters to vary and/or to covary with the intercept within persons (for details, see chapter 8 of Snijders and Bosker, 1999). None of these (co)variance estimates was significant (all p > 0.10) and none was substantial (all < 10% of the within-subject intercept variance). This was stated very briefly in sections 5.3 and 6.1 of my paper. With respect to the need for a shift parameter, I agree. However, extension of a two-parameter model to a three-parameter model may greatly complicate estimation and testing. This is well-known in the context of logistic IRT models. The guessing parameter of the three-parameter model plays a role similar to the role of a shift parameter in RT models, because it imposes a lower bound. This is considered to be a serious burden for IRT models. In the context of the lognormal model, similar statistical complications may arise (see, e.g., Cohen, 1988). It is therefore with much interest that I have read Rouder’s work on Bayesian inference for the three-parameter Weibull RT model by MCMC methods (e.g. Rouder, Sun, Speckman, Lu, and Zhou, 2003). Statistical and psychometric literature shows an increasing use of such methods and they do appear to become inevitable. However, I still remember Cox’s reaction to a lecture by Rubin involving Gibbs sampling 10 years ago, saying that he liked to keep it simple and to understand a method by writing it out on the back of a cigar box (for part of this discussion, see Cox, 1998). Old-fashioned as this attitude may seem, I have a similar one and I feel that even twenty-first century science cannot do without some of it. Before embracing MCMC estimation of many-parameter models for speed and accuracy, I need to know more about their identifiability, the behavior of MCMC estimation in studies with small numbers of items, say 20, and their added-value for person and item estimation in the context of intelligence testing. Independent of these philosophical considerations, most of the present findings may remain almost unaltered upon adding a shift parameter. For instance, item effects are clear from Fig. 2, and CAF estimation by logistic regression of response correctness on log RT does not require any assumption about the RT distribution. For