Hong et al. reply to Walliser
  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. 
Daniel C. Hong, Paul V. Quinn, Stefan Luding