*“Logical overlap is the norm for the complex models analyzed with ABC, so many ABC posterior model probabilities published to date are wrong.”***Alan R. Templeton, PNAS**, doi:10.1073/pnas.1009012107

**O**ur letter in PNAS about Templeton’s surprising diatribe on Bayesian inference is now appeared in the early edition, along with Templeton’s reply. This reply is unfortunately missing any novelty element compared with the original paper. First, he maintains that the critcism is about ABC (which is, in case you do not know, a computational technique and not a specific statistical methodology!). Second, he insists on the inappropriate Venn diagram analogy by reproducing the basic identity

(presumably in case we had lost sight of it!) to argue that using instead

is *incoherent* (hence rejecting Bayes factors, Bayesian model averaging and so on). I am not particularly surprised by this immutable stance, but it means that there is little point in debate when starting from such positions… Our main goal in publishing this letter was actually to stress that the earlier tribune had no statistical ground and I think we achieved this goal.