In our Eos article of 18 November 2003, we were trying to address how geoscientists, especially seismologists, fully and understandably communicate their products and the associated uncertainty not only to themselves, but also to laypersons. The Comment by C. H. Cramer on our article seems to miss the point. We did not criticize probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA), but tried to point out some of its limitations, because these limitations have significant implications. We do not understand why in his comments Cramer is trying to compare PSHA with deterministic seismic hazard analysis (DSHA). Our paper did not discuss DSHA at all. Of course, some of the limitations apply equally to DSHA, but not all. Cramer's comments could cause additional confusion.