Great paper and it motivates
me to get moving on my dust mass work.  Are you going to fit the dust
mass benchmark project galaxies?  I'll be getting moving on this in the
next month or so.  Others are starting to work on these galaxies as
well.  Clearly having your fits would be quite valuable.

*** I wasn't planning on it, since I figured Bruce would get it from his modeling.  I could do a single modified black body-based estimate, but I figured you already had that angle covered.  I guess you're referring to dust masses based off of my SEDs?  Recovering the dust mass in that case isn't exactly straightforward.

  Anyway, onto my few comments.

1) I don't seem to appear in the author list.  Hopefully this is just an
oversight and not an indication I should leave KINGFISH.  :-P

*** Good catch.  Sorry!

2) The KINGFISH paper mentioned in the introduction as Gordon et al.
(2011, in prep.) is going to be about the spatial variations of the
submm excess in all the well resolved KINGFISH galaxies.  Just a FYI as
I'm not sure if the current description is right, but it probably is the
more I think about it.

*** Yeah, I can see how it could have been nuanced better.  I'll leave it as is unless you can provide an eloquent replacment sentence/paragraph.  :)

3) Are the uncertainties for PACS really 10, 10, & 20%?  This seems
larger than the PACS guys tell me (e.g. Marc Sauvage).

*** Good point.  I suppose those are out of data.  Maybe I hadn't updated them after being gun-shy based on the cross-calibration checks we saw earlier between PACS/MIPS/IRAS.  I'll put them at 5%, which is one way of reading the current PACS manual.

4) On page 15, do you want to make a direct reference to the dust mass
benchmark project instead of Gordon et al. (2011)?  The direct KINGFISH
Gordon et al. paper (now 2012) will be on resolved galaxies looking at
the submm excess.  The dust mass benchmark project will be a separate
paper (not directly a KINGFISH paper).

*** I put it at the end of Section 4.5.  (Actually, that reference was already there, but I clarified things now by saying 2012a and 2012b for the two separate papers.)