Pacholik-Żuromska takes issue with both my proposal to tone down Searle’s Background Hypothesis in terms of the distinction between producers and mere consumers and my claim that part of the background of intentionality is itself intentional (albeit in a derived sense). In her introduction she kindly raises the question “who has made the mistake—the speaker (producer, author) or the hearer (consumer, reader),” provided that “the interpreter of the article […] was to misunderstand the article” (Pacholik-Żuromska this collection, pp. 2–6). I answer that in case of doubt it is the author of the target article, of course, who has made the mistake. As the formulation of her question shows, Pacholik-Żuromska has indeed misunderstood a central distinction, i.e., that between producer and mere consumer. However, before I take the opportunity to correct this and other misunderstandings, I would like to comment on two ideas and suggestions by Pacholik-Żuromska that I find interesting and well worth pursuing further.