Our previous critique of Martin, Sabourin, Laplante, and Coallier (1991) included 10 serious criticisms of their methods and conclusions regarding the dimensionality of the Career Decision Scale (CDS). Although the quantity of the Laplante, Coallier, Sabourin, and Martin (1994) response was not bad (i.e., they attempted to address 7 of the 10 criticisms), the quality of their response was disappointing because it confused fact with fiction, and included a wealth of extraneous and irrelevant material. Nothing in their response convinced (or even tempted) us to retract any of our original criticisms. Most importantly, the equivalence of their French version of the CDS with the English version was still not demonstrated, our four-factor model was still not disconfirmed, and their model testing procedures remain suspect (e.g., for some undisclosed reason, Laplante et al. (1994) and Martin et al. (1991) are at odds as to whether they accepted their one-factor model). Based on our findings (as well as those of Martin et al. — despite their conclusions, their findings support our model), the fact remains that our four-factor model provided the best fit among the several models tested, indicating firm support for the multidimensionality of the CDS. We found ourselves in substantial agreement with Osipow (1994), and we urge him to refine the CDS by adding dimension-specific items and revising double-barreled items.