I would like to address the remarks made in Fodor and Lepore's article
(henceforth, FL), ``The Emptiness of the Lexicon: Critical Reflections
on J.  Pustejovsky's {\it The Generative Lexicon}" (see this issue),
regarding the research program outlined in Pustejovsky (1995).  The
title of my article is meant to broadly illustrate their underlying
assumptions on semantics, whereby: (a) semantics involves no specific
knowledge of language, so it must be elsewhere represented and
processed in the mind; (b) FL reject any logical explanations for
natural language semantic phenomena, and consequently appeal to
mysterious oracles; finally, (c) FL judge semantic models by criteria
which are beyond any conceivable theory being able to meet. My
response, therefore, focuses on two themes, FL's misreadings and
misinterpretations of the substance as well as the details of the
book, and the generally misguided and almost cynical approach to the
study of semantics and natural language meaning inherent in their
approach.