Abstract: 
=========

cubes-> maps

--Done

overuse of the term "accretion-powered", both here and in the text. We
don't probe the accretion zone at all, so while it may be the sexy new
catch-phrase for AGN, I think we should tone it back a bit.

--I've removed 4 of the 6 instances.

Introduction:
=============

shrouded->enshrouded

--Fixed

"astronomers to peer" is a bit awkward...

--Changed

last two sentences: explored ... explore.  Man we're explorers. 

--One "explore" converted to "observe"

Extra-nuclear Regions:
======================

As an aside: how did we get the extinction-corrected ionizing
Luminosity?

--I just took this line from Kennicutt et al. (2003)

If possible, quote the range of radiation field intensity (perhaps
relative to the local Habing field).

--Done

Spitzer Data Proc:
==================

End of first paragraph: quote the observing time per pixel (accounting
for our overlap scheme).  

--I already indicate the integration per pointing, and then indicate
  each location was observed 2-4 times.  Wouldn't it be redundant to
  also give the observing time per pixel?

2nd para.: mention that we took SL skies from the archive in some cases.

--Done

Forward reference Smith et al. 2006 for a CUBISM paper.  Smith, Dale et
al, that is.  

--Done

Last para: "the same extraction apertures" -> "the same matched
extraction apertures".  Also, does that mean we rejected Tol 89 and
5408?  Why do we mention these explicitly then? 

--"matched" added to sentence.  I have removed the explicit reference
  to N5408 and Tol89. 

Fitting a Drude profile to the 6.2um feature would be more physical (and
make Bruce happier as well)...

--I'd prefer not to redo ~200 fits when it won't make a difference in
  Figure 3.  Smith, Draine et al. will provide such fits, correct?

Archival Spect:
===============

I was confused as to whether we ever mixed ISO and Spitzer data.  I
actually know we don't, but after reading this paragraph, wasn't so
sure.  Why does the "match" between ISO-PHOT and SH matter?  Perhaps you
just mean they cover similar areas, so are physically comparable.  Might
be better to say it that way, because as it is, it introduces false
worries about cross-observatory flux calibration and aperture centering.

--I don't want to say here that the extraction apertures are physically
  comparable, because elsewhere I mention that the range of distances
  in our sample leads to a range of physical extraction apertures.
  Instead, I have added a line assuring the reader that we never
  extract from both observatories for the same source.

Spitzer 24um:
=============

"are unreliable" -> "are biased by the un-subtracted background".

--Done (plus more tweaks)

Optical Spec. Obs and Data Proc:
================================

You need to mention that these are nuclei only somewhere in the 1st
para.

--Good point.  Done.

High-Res IR Spec: Emission Lines:
=================================

The definition of ionized region is a bit loose here.  You mean
"hydrogen gas ionized gas regions", because obviously [SiII] is from an
ionized species (partially in PDRs, yes).  I know what you mean, but it
wouldn't hurt to make it slightly more explicit.

--Done (but please check b/c I wasn't exactly sure about your above
  wording)

Low-Res IR Spec: 6.2um feature
==============================

"of a system" a bit imprecise.  Perhaps: "of the gas in PDRs" or some
such.

--Done

Opt. Class of Nuclei
====================

NED is not a classification scheme, but a collection of gather
literature results.  I'd mention NED once, and then refer to "literature
results" and emphasize the good agreement, with a few revisions, for our
sample.  Have you updated your BPT list, so I can use it?

--"NED" has been replaced with "the literature" in three instances.
  The agreement has been emphasized.

"There may be few if any transition objects" is a bit awkward.  There
are a few.  No biggie.

--wording removed

"where we will perhaps more convincingly"... sounds like you're not sure
it will be convincing, or perhaps that you are reading along with us,
and don't know what to expect.

--wording removed, as the emphasis is not on optical vs IR 
  classifications

Emission Line Ratios and PAH Strength
=====================================

Please quote my 2004 ApJS paper when talking about the energetics of
OIV.

--Done

Para 1, end: We need to describe why [OIV] may not be a perfect AGN
tracer.  Since the Genzel group had upper limits for most non-AGN
sources, it's actually real news that we're detecting OIV all over the
place, and we need to make people aware that even puny HII regions have
[OIV].  Also, pointing to Morris et al. 2004 ApJS 154...413, which is
the first direct detection of [OIV] in a WR star, might help punctuate
this.  From the old Genzel diagram, you might well conclude that [OIV],
at any level, is a perfect AGN indicator.  Now we know better.

--I agree, but I should note that the Peeters et al. (2004) work had 
  only 7 [OIV] non-detections out of 35 in their Figure 10.  So it would
  be a bit unfair to say now we are finally detecting [OIV].  However,
  I have emphasized the novelty of detections from faint regions.

Para 2.: Really, one wouldn't expect an inverted trend.  If you consider
the trend to originate from differing degrees of AGN dominance to the
line excitation, [OIV]/[NeII] is AGN vs. non-AGN, whereas [SiII] vs.
[NeII] are both "sub-AGN" in their ionization.  If it weren't for PIR's
(which we haven't yet brought up), you'd expect their trend (if any) to
be wholly disconnected from the trend defined by the AGN vs. non-AGN
excited line (leaving aside the issue of [OIV]).  

--Yes, but the steepness of the AGN spectrum implies more 21.6 eV
  photons than 8.2 eV photons.  That's the point I'm making.

Probably best not to quote Maloney like that; just paraphrase their
findings.  

--Done

Last sentence: "of the 1-100 keV" -> "of the absorbed 1-100 keV".

--appropriately recast in terms of FIR emission

Para 3: I found it hard to follow this density argument.  Also, I hope
you meant "then the *high* [SiII]/[NeII] for AGN sources.." in both
sentences, or I am very confused.  

--fixed the typos...

Style suggestion: non need to continuously repeat the line wavelengths
when quoting ratios (here and elsewhere).

--I'll opt for leaving the wavelengths in, unless I hear from others.

Para 4: Where did these mixing endpoints come from?  Is this just an
arbitrary choice?  It would be nice to say what they correspond to (a.g.
average of HII for star-formation anchor, etc.). 

--The motivations for the mixing curve anchors were purely empirical.  I
  originally used SINGS objects as the anchors, but the SINGS sample
  simply doesn't fill enough parameter space to provide useful anchors.  
"makes sense" -> "is not surprising"

--changed to "unsurprising"

"Nonetheless" -> despite Lee's semi-bruised ego, no apology is
necessary.  It is a new technique, perhaps we should have expected it,
but it is new.

--reworded to be less wimpy

Whither [NeV]?  This is a cool line, and we've got a few of them.  Why
not show it in some way?  I haven't dropped this hammer on you yet, but
upper limits could be very useful, as others have said.  This is a case
where they could salvage a plot from the "too few points" bin.  Also,
they'd improve the [OIV] plot.  I know others have said it, and maybe
you've already started in on it, but a few judiciously applied upper
limits could really improve some of the plots.

--I have added upper limits for all [OIV] non-detections.  As for [NeV],
  we have a grand total of two detections from DR3 nuclei, so I prefer
  to avoid that line in this paper.
  
Excitation Line Ratios:
=======================

This is the weakest section, and needs some attention to make it stand
out.  If you are using high/low vs. high/low as an excitation tracer,
you'll need to show that one of them [SIV] is a higher high, and thus
the low-Z LMC regions would veer off.   

--I don't understand your comment: I do point out that the LMC points
  exhibit the highest excitation since the line ratios are highest.  I
  have added references to a couple papers that explain low-Z implies
  high line ratios in this plot.

"double" -> "doubly"

--fixed

in the upper righthand -> in the high ionization, upper righthand

--Done

Excitation and Metallicity
==========================

Madden 2005 had a nice plot on this.  

--reference added to previous section.

Last sentence: lower metallicity -> harsher -> enhanced high to low.
The sequencing you mention is not trivial to see in your current plot.
I have a few suggestions for improving the plots at the end. 

--The presentation of the plot has been improved.  Do you agree?

Density Diagnostics
===================

What's the significance of the trend in the two lines?  Spectra with
strong lines relative to their 24um continuum have strong lines?
Wouldn't this have held with any two lines relative to 24um?  I like the
plot, but perhaps scale back the introductory excitement over the
correlation. 

--I'm trying to show 
  a) the density is the ~same for all SINGS targets
  b) star-forming sources show higher line-to-continuum ratios
  A [SIII]/[SIII] line ratio gives you density.  But other combinations
  of line ratios won't necessarily give you density.  They might, for
  examle, give you temperature, which could differ between star-forming
  and AGN sources.

"phase space": hackneyed.  

--Sounds like you've been studying for the SAT.  I replaced the term 
  with "the diagram".

Summary
=======

"plus" -> ", supplemented by"

--Done

"Genzel Diagram" -> diagnostic diagram of Genzel et al.

--Done, though I might reconsider it's inclusion.

Why don't we future reference our work (Moire's) on A_V in our nuclei?

--I've run into referees that do not appreciate forward referencing, so
  I try to limit that.

Figures
=======

You've already heard much of this, but I put it here for completeness...

Fig. 1:  These spectra are ugly.  I'll show you how to offset, and blend
at order overlaps, for better looking spectra.  Some real spikes stand
out in 0628's high-res spectrum.  Since these are for show, we should
clean them as much as possible.  The last panel has too much y-axis
space.  

--They have been prettified, and the truncations have been fixed.

Fig. 3: In all figures, we need a better way to discriminate among
either 2 or 3 simple categories.  If 2, it's AGN vs. no-AGN.  If 3, it's
Seyfert, LINER, and everything else.  These are the "broad-brush"
categories.  I suggest color for distinguishing these (RGB?).  You can
keep your finer categories, just indicate the "broad brush" ones
clearly.  Probably "from SINGS" vs. "archival" is not as important a
concept to communicate, so can be relegated to a less visible diff.
This applies to the other plots as well.  

--I have simplified from 9 to 6 categories

For this plot, I think it would be cool to have some marginal
histograms, essentially collapsing the data (in largish bins) along X
and Y (along y for both panels), and plotting either 2 or 3 histograms,
with the same colors as you chose for the 2 or 3 "broad-brush"
categories.  You can stick these histograms right in the plot, butted up
against the data themselves.  This will show us the real separation
achieved along individual axes.  There will be overlap, yes.  This could
require splitting top and bottom into two different figures to avoid
looking too busy.  

--I've used marginal histograms before; I like them.  But coupled with
  the "busyness" factor, the fact that I've split up the plots into
  regions and quantified in tables (see below), I would prefer not to
  add these histograms.

Then, if you wanted to get super fancy, take your mixing line, and
project (rotate) along it, and make yet another histogram-of-2 (or 3)
categories showing the better AGN/SF/(LINER) separation along that line.
I'm not convinced this is necessary, but if it showed much better
separation than any of the other two axes, it would be quite cool.

--I have created multiple regions within Figures 3 and 5, and added
  tables that quantify the populations within each region.  This serves
  to better distinguish between Seyferts and star-forming.

Fig. 4: The dotted AGN line doesn't show up well in grayscale prints. 

--Figures with color do not print well on grayscale prints.  They are
  intended for color printers.  I could make black & white plots that
  print well on grayscale prints, but I think we'll stick with color. 

Fig. 5: You've already sent a draft with statistical-only error bars: I
far prefer it (and would do this throughout).  Also, as mentioned, the
"sequence" from left to right you reference might be clearer if you
added some additional fit lines, or boundaries, or something like that.

--Done

Fig. 6: Already mentioned, but explicit low-and-high density limits
would be nice.  Probably should mention in the text that many are
consistent with the low-density limit.  

--I've added to the figure words explicitly indicating density limits.
  And the caption has been beefed up.