  R\'edei and san Pedro discuss my "Comparing Causality Principles," their main
aim being to distinguish reasonable weakened versions of two causality
principles presented there, "SO1" and "SO2". They also argue that the proof
that SO1 implies SO2 contains a flaw. Here, a reply is made to a number of
points raised in their paper. It is argued that the "intuition" that SO1 should
be stronger than SO2 is implicitly based on a false premise. It is pointed out
that a similar weakening of SO2 was already considered in the original paper.
The technical definition of the new conditions is shown to be defective. The
argument against the stronger versions of SO1 and SO2 given by R\'edei and san
Pedro is criticised. The flaw in the original proof is shown to be an easily
corrected mistake in the wording. Finally, it is argued that some cited results
on causal conditions in AQFT have little relevance to these issues, and are, in
any case, highly problematic in themselves.
