  I reply to the four points raised by S. A. Hayward, R. Di Criscienzo, M.
Nadalini, L. Vanzo, S. Zerbini (arXiv:0909.2956v1) against my comment
(arXiv:0907.2020v1) to their previous article. I maintain my position on the
wrongness of their paper, reporting also another mistake.
