Abstract
During a previous interchange with Dr Dhlomo we had to separate the little material that was relevant to the article that he had taken issue with from the personal attacks. We (the two authors of the article in question) then wrote that ‘Dr Dhlomo does not address himself to our main arguments. Instead he picks up on peripherial issues, and descends to the level of casting personal slurs on us’ (Sunday Tribune, 25.01.86). Unfortunately this is the case once again. I will refrain, except for a couple of comments, from responding to the personal attacks, innuendos and attributions. Many of Dr Dhlomo's points that refer to my article in this publication are clearly inapplicable as even a cursory comparison will show. I will not respond to these either.