The author responds to the critique of his book "Peirce's Theory of Signs." With regards to criticisms about the scope and approach of the book, the author argues that a book is not enough to cover every aspect of C.S. Peirce's theory of signs. He claims that his book is more comprehensive than his critics seem to think, citing the definitions he offered for "interpretation," "sign," and "significance." He explains why he did not develop Peirce's teleology in more detail.