  The purpose of this note is to point out that McDonald's criticism of our
work \cite{r1} is based on a circular argument. In order to show that the field
of a bounded source falls off as $f(\theta,\phi)/r$ in the far zone, McDonald
uses a Huygens-Kirchhoff diffraction integral whose derivation (from Maxwell's
equations) already entails assuming a fall-off of this form for the field at
infinity \cite{r2}. ($r$, $\theta$ and $\phi$ are the spherical polar
coordinates centred on a point within the source, and $f$ is a factor
independent of $r$.
