The reviews by Rogers, Sewell, Harrison, and Jordan (2006/this issue), and by Nichols (2006/this issue) offer markedly contrasting appraisals of the MMPI-2 Restructured Clinical (RC) Scales introduced by Tellegen et al. (2003). The one common feature is that both reviews draw on the same atypical MMPI-2 (Butcher, Dahlstrom, Graham, Tellegen, & Kaemmer, 1989) data set for their empirical analyses, with results warranting critical scrutiny. Rogers et al.'s critique provides an evaluation of the RC Scales from the perspective of Jackson's (1970) method of test development. One significant issue in Rogers et al.'s review concerns social desirability, prompting us to clarify our own views on this topic. We also highlight and discuss problems associated with Rogers et al.'s use of the unrepresentative data set. Nichols's polemical critique neglects empirical and theoretical support for demoralization as a central construct and misconstrues as "construct drift" the purposeful process of developing the RC scales. Nichols's criticisms and proposals overlook requirements for assessing syndromes and for construct validation and even rudiments of scale development. Our reply incorporates evidence, including new findings, refuting his criticisms and confirming that demoralization is a pervasive MMPI dimension, that the RC Scales capture the major distinctive features of the original Clinical Scales, and that they generate correspondingly meaningful validity patterns.