Dear Eric, We thank you and the referee for these final comments, and appreciate your specialized attention to our manuscript. We address the concerns below and expect that the revisions to the manuscript made in response will also satisfy the referee. >> For R_inner, I also found the second paragraph of sec 4.1.2 to be >> confusing. >> Perhaps the language could be clarified, and an example of R_inner >> uncertainty >> (both statistical and systematic) be provided for one of the disks. To address both sets of comments on this issue, we have added the following foot note in the second paragraph of section 4.1.2 after the sentence ending "temperatures at larger radii." We chose footnote rather than main text presentation as we have just given the uncertainty range in the radius estimates for the entire population of disks. "For a typical source such as HD 105, the error in the fitted dust temperature ($\sim$10\%) corresponds to an uncertainty of $\sim$20\% in the dust inner radius estimated under the assumption of blackbody emission from the equation above (with a best-fit value of 42 AU listed in Table 5). Under different assumptions regarding the nature of the emitting grains, this same temperature would correspond to much larger radii of $\sim$ 400 AU (efficient absorbers and inefficient emitters with a mean grain-size of 0.95 $\mu$m)" We have also improved the presentation in the rest of section 4.1.2 to clarify the limits on fractional dust luminosity in the non-blackbody vs blackbody scenarios. Frankly, we are perplexed that the referee believes that we are intentionally obfuscating the situation with respect to the errors on the physical parameters. While we were perhaps remiss in not stating the uncertainties explicitly in the text (though they could be computed with ease based on tabular information), I must say that I was not enamoured with the characterization that our "honesty" regarding errors was somehow "ingenuous". The "simple English" version is that we have limited data and are forced to make the strong assumption of simplistic blackbody emission. We calculate some simple quantities like color temperature from flux density ratio and dust location from a derived stellar luminosity and the above temperature. That is about it. However, we do go to great pains to lay out various other possible assumptions for grain properties and how they would affect our results for the physical parameters, though we do not follow through to provide alternate numerical values for the entire sample; even more complex grain assumptions are also possible. Finally, we give an estimate of the general confidence on the numbers. None of this is "ingenuous." However, we are open to further suggestions if there is more we can do to convey conservatism yet progress. In summary, we feel that we have addressed the concerns regarding the confidence with which our dust radius numbers can be believed. The next step is obviously spatially resolved imaged which will be pursued with HST and Keck (scattered light) plus Herschel and ALMA (thermal). >> For >> R_outer uncertainty, sec 1 states that they are "poorly constrained" >> and sec >> 4.3 states they "can not be constrained with data currently >> available". These >> uncertainties should be presented in sec 4.1.2 and their effect on >> later >> calculations such as timescales in sec 5.3. R_outer is not relevant in 4.1.2 where the single temperature blackbody fits are discussed, but does come up in 4.3. We have modified paragraph seven in this section to include the following text (after the sentence stating that we fit for R_inner and R_outer). "We present our extended disk modeling results in Table 6. We list lower limits to the range of radii inferred from these (blackbody) temperature estimates, and refer the reader to section 4.1.2 for the caveats in interpreting these radii as physical constraints on the true location of the dust. Taken at face value, the values imply fractional disk widths $\delta~R/R$ $\approx (R_{outer}-R_{inner})/(R_{outer}+R_{inner})/2$ of at least factors several. We emphasize that we are unable to constrain the dust outer radii very well as the sensitivity and wavelength coverage of our observations does not fully probe the coolest dust. However, we are quite confident in our general result of extended disks." To your point, in section 5.3, we already stated in the fifth paragraph the fiducial value for R_outer that was used in estimating the relevant timescales, 200 AU; this information is also in the Table heading. It is an assumed value, out of necessity. Now we have also added a sentence on the propogation of R_inner errors into the time scales. Basically, as can be seen from the equations, T_coll \ propto R^1.5 and T_PR \ propto R^2 so the ratio is relatively insensitive to these errors. We have added just before the sentence on the scaling with grain size, a sentence: "In the former case, $\tau_{collisions} / \tau_{P-R} \propto 1/\sqrt{R}$ and so the 10-30\% uncertainties in $R_{inner}$ are not a large effect." >> I am also confused why >> the first >> paragraph of sec 8 uses the range 7-100 AU while Table 6 has several >> disks with >> R_outer>200 AU. >> The sentence previously mentioned only R_dust values, which are really the R_inner in the language of the latter parts of the paper. It is to this quantity that the stated range applies. R_outer values were not specified in the previously submitted text at this point. We have clarified this sentence to say R_dust, inner. Then a few sentences later when the evidence for extended disks is discussed, we have now stated explicitly "Such models imply disks with inferred (but poorly constrained) R$_{dust, outer}$ values ranging from 35 to beyond 200." With these minor changes, and some smaller changes made to wording throughout the text, we hope our paper can be accepted rapidly. Thank you again for your efforts in improving the clarity of the manuscript. On behalf of the authors, Lynne >> >> ************************************************* >> >> I have examined the authors’ responses to my earlier recommendations >> and taken >> a careful look at the revised manuscript. I feel that they have >> addressed my >> chief concerns, except as follows, which is a general comment about >> how the >> authors have presented errors or uncertainties. >> >> My comment 4 had to do with whether or not R values derived from >> model fits to >> the observations also reflected uncertainties in the dust >> temperatures. In my >> opinion, the authors’ response to that comment seemed to miss the po >> int. They >> refer to “notional values derived with strong assumptions.” What doe >> s that >> mean? The example does not help, and their statement that they don’t >> want “to >> mislead the readers,” seems ingenuous. I simply want to know the >> best estimate >> of the real uncertainties in the conclusions about R(inner) and R >> (outer). While >> the authors parse the uncertainties in their response to me, in my >> opinion they >> really don’t lay out in plain English and with some precision in the >> text what >> the reader should believe and how confident in the result the reader >> should be. >> Readers will not want to intuit what the uncertainties mean. I think >> they will >> either take results at face value--a mistake, in my opinion--or >> ignore the >> results except for the general conclusions, which is my own >> response. The paper >> has the unsettling quality of presenting results with great >> precision but then >> claiming that there are huge uncertainties. >