It is shown that the conclusions reached by Tereno are completely faulty We have recently shown that the Kruskal derivative assumes a form [1] du dv → f(r, t, dr/dt) ±f(r, t, dr/dt) (1) because u → ±v as r → 2M . Although this limit attains a value of ±1 irrespective of f → 0,∞, or anything, Tereno [2] refuses to accept this. Although, we have already pointed out that one should work out the li...