  We find it absurd that Walliser [1] essentially used the same analysis and
obtained identical results as reported in [3], yet arrived at different
conclusions. Namely, based on an incomplete theory and using erroneous
arguments, he not only disputes the original results [2], but also claims them
wrong. A more complete theory and much more detailed studies were published in
[3], from which we concluded that such results support the mechanism of
segregation introduced in ref. [2]. We want to make it clear that Walliser
obtained partial results of ref. [3] and arrived at the opposite conclusion. In
the following we discuss his comment and its relevance, but at the same time
point out what went wrong with his arguments.
