  The reply by Oughstun et al. [J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 28, 468-469 (2011)] to our
comment [J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 28, 450-452 (2011)] on their recently published
paper [J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 27, 1664-1670 (2010)] is shown to make no response to
the main points raised in our comment and even to bring additional confusion.
The present reply provides the necessary clarifications.
