We ended our peer-reviewed paper by inviting commentary and many did so here, on social media, and to us privately. Across these sources, many found our paper to be balanced and raising important questions, while others negatively attached intent and content we did not ascribe, including a false dichotomy regarding colleagues from other disciplines. The volume, scope, slant and sources of the ten commentaries and letters that were provided to us by the editor for our response (Authors of these commentaries and letters are Bostwick et al., Dantonio & Connolly, Flynn et al., Lamb et al., Lee et al., McCauley et al., Polick et al., Potempa & Hurn, Rutherford et al., Tubbs-Cooley et al., and Villarruel & Fairman.) presented an unusual and curious picture, one that is inconsistent with the full range of feedback that we received personally. Thus, we reserve the option to develop a fuller response that advances the scholarly dialogue we seek when we are provided full access to all responses to our paper accepted for publication in Nursing Outlook.