To foresee the future we must consult the past Hiriart-Urruty reminds us of something I completely agree; in order to advance forward we need to look at the past and understand what others did. In this respect, let me mention that (as is hinted in Sect. 4.2) my counterexamples to the (bounded) Hirsch conjecture (F. Santos 2012) use two ideas from the 45-year old paper by Klee and Walkup (1967). (Unless otherwise stated, all references in this rejoinder refer to the bibliography in the main paper). On the one hand, the Strong d-step Lemma (Theorem 4.8) is an extension of the original d-step lemma of Klee and Walkup (Lemma 4.7). On the other hand, the initial constructions of 5-spindles of length 6 were inspired by the understanding of the Klee-Walkup unbounded non-Hirsch polyhedron in terms of the Cayley trick (see Fig. 11 in Kim and Santos 2009). However, I have to confess I have more than once been guilty of the sin that Hiriart-Urruty describes as everybody writes, nobody reads. And certainly, I agree with Hiriart-Urruty and Poincaré that there are no solved problems. The other three commentators, De Loera, Eisenbrad, and Terlaky, devote most of their commentaries to some of the things that I announce in the Introduction that I do not cover in my paper. I have to thank them for the effort of putting in a few pages so much interesting information. In a sense, I am glad not to have covered these topics, since that made them have to cover themselves, which they have done very nicely. Let me just add a couple of comments myself.