1. Organization -- Maybe Sections 4.3-4.6 should be put in a new section, separate from 4.1-4.2. It could be called "Modeling/Analysis/Interpretation/etc. of the Observed SEDs", or something like that. Just an idea. *** I thought about it, but ultimately disliked the idea of a section with only two subsections. -- On that note, the title of the paper doesn't reflect that there's a lot more in the paper in addition to the FIR/submm photometry. Maybe it could have a subtitle, like "Constraining Dust Heating and Masses". But then the title would be really long, so I'm not sure that's actually a good idea. *** I'm happy sticking with a humble title. 2. Overlaps with my paper -- It might be good to mention my paper in the introduction, maybe in the third paragraph, since we had a complementary analysis of the "global" flux densities of the same galaxies (plus M33). *** Did I not mention your paper? Whoops. It doesn't fit in the intro, but you'll see below where I've been able to work it in. -- Either at the beginning of Section 4.1 or in Section 3.2, you could state that we estimated preliminary SPIRE flux densities for these galaxies in Skibba et al. (2011). Looking over your Table 2, it looks like our SPIRE flux densities were similar to or slightly lower than yours. Ours actually look systematically lower, but within the uncertainties. Let me know if you want me to compare them more carefully or give you specific numbers. *** Do you know if there were any systematic shifts in the SPIRE calibration since your paper? If not, then such a comparison might be useful. Note that a student of mine and I are doing the same comparison with Gonzalo's work (including PACS, too). -- We also estimated dust temperatures and masses in our paper, but we used a simple single-temperature modified-blackbody (with emissivity index beta=1.5), and we used SPIRE 500 um (rather than 250) as the reference wavelength. If you think it would add to the paper, we could compare the masses and temperatures from my paper to yours. Anyway, the Tdust distribution I had was very similar to the one you've plotted in the left panel of Fig. 7, so that's good to see. Also, as we noted in my paper, our modified-blackbody dust masses were systematically lower than those in Draine et al. (2007), by 0.2-0.4 dex, which is consistent with your comments at the end of Sec. 4.5 and at the end of the paper. *** This is where I now reference your paper, and the similarities in our results. Thanks for the reminder! 3. Other minor comments/suggestions -- It might be good to mention that KINGFISH is the successor to SINGS, in either the abstract or early in the introduction. I don't think that many people are familiar with KINGFISH yet. *** I mention SINGS in the Sample section. It's not as early as the Intro, but I think it's ok there. -- The first two sentences of the first paragraph of the intro are sort of distinct from the rest of the paragraph, and I would separate them into two. -- In the second paragraph of the intro, there should probably be a reference (Griffin et al.) at the first mention of SPIRE. Also, it's probably good to mention here, rather than waiting until Section 2, that you're presenting PACS photometry as well. *** Hmmm ... you think it's too much of a slap at PACS to not mention it in the Intro? I see your point. OK, I've reworked things here. -- In the 3rd paragraph of the intro, you could also say "P.I.: R.C. Kennicutt" after spelling out the acronym for KINGFISH. -- Section 3.3, 1st paragraph: it might be good to state explicitly how large the contribution from the sky emission typically is, or for an example galaxy. *** I looked into this. The ratio of (sky within aperture)/(galaxy within aperture) spans such a large range that I think an average or median statistic isn't that helpful. -- At the end of Section 3.4, you could say how many sources in the sample were undetected by Herschel imaging. *** It's somewhat messy b/c some are undetected at all six wavelengths and others at just a few wavelengths. But I think I get your point here (Herschel did a good job detecting the vast majority), so I've inserted "few" in the sentence. -- For Figure 2, what are the typical uncertainties of the FIR/submm colors? *** I've added sets of typical error bars. -- Section 4.3, 4th paragraph: why does the submm SPIRE data allow for lower values of U_min in the SED fits? *** Lower U_min is linked to colder dust, which emits at longer wavelengths. I've improved that sentence. -- For Figure 4, what are the typical uncertainties of the parameters (Mdust, Umin, gamma)? Also, in the top panel (gamma ratio vs f70/f160), which galaxy is the large outlier? *** I'll leave the description of uncertainties in the fits, etc., to Gonzalo's paper; I'll just stick with the reduced Chi-Squared values. I've added the name of the outlier to the figure. -- For Figure 6, you say that the results are "not significantly different when 70 um data are included", but it would be interesting to quote the average difference between the dust masses. Also, in the y-axis label of the figure, maybe it would be better to say "Mdust(MBB)", for modified blackbody, rather than "Mdust(BB)". *** I now quantitatively compare the medians in the two plots.