Ernest Bormann's response to “Symbolic Convergence and Abolitionism” fails to address the central point of our essay—he wrongly dichotomizes abolitionist rhetoric. We contend that: (1) Bormann's interpretation was deeply influenced by Barnes; (2) convergence theory did not generate Bormann's interpretation of abolition; (3) our use of terministic analysis is appropriate; and (4) Bormann's views on abolition are imprecise and overgeneralized. Beneath our disagreement on abolition rhetoric lie deeper differences of purpose and impulse.