Abstract
We believe that the criticisms of Nicolis and Balakrishnan [preceding Comment, Phys. Rev. A 46, 3569 (1992)] reflect a misunderstanding of the basis of our claims. Here, we repeat a number of points already made in our papers [Phys. Rev. A 43, 1709 (1991); 42, 1946 (1990); Phys. Rev. Lett. 64, 249 (1990)] in order to dispel ambiguity and misunderstanding.