This article presents the authors' response to a response to their research on Illinois in which the authors analyze the equity, adequacy, and legal issues related to school finance. The Responders' quarrel with that portion of the authors' research that addresses equity and create a "de novo" analysis, by treating unequals equally--an invalid endeavor fraught with difficulties to which the authors feel called upon to respond. However, the Responders accept what the authors consider the major contribution of the equity portion of their work--dissemination of a method to provide analysis for "all" districts in Illinois, including elementary, high school, and unit school districts. In this article, the authors further review the analytic framework used in "The Illinois Dilemma" and contrast it to the Responders, concluding that theirs is flawed. The authors' approach is widely used and discussed elsewhere in detail. It draws on the philosophical and legal dimensions of justice and fairness in education. The authors also replicate their study that used weighted pupils based on size and need to develop baseline equity statistics using unweighted pupils for comparison purposes. Finally, the authors address the Responders' apparent rationale for inequity based on an arbitrary cut-off point that draws only on select elementary districts in the state. The authors find this approach without merit as all pupils are pupils of the state including students in high school and unitary districts. (Contains 1 figure, 2 tables, and 38 footnotes.)