Reply to "Consistency requirements onΔcontributions to theNNpotential"

It is pointed out that the Urbana, Stony Brook, and Bonn groups treat the $\Delta$-isobar contributions to the $\mathrm{NN}$ interaction in different ways, which lead to different conclusions regarding the overcounting problem. It is questioned whether, in a field-theoretic framework neglecting quark-theoretic viewpoints, the $\pi N$ system, in general, and the Chew-Low model, in particular, can serve as reliable testing grounds for boson-exchange models of the $\mathrm{NN}$ interaction.