In this response to the preceding paper by Bader, we show that the core arguments and statements presented in the latter are flawed. We argue that it is insufficient for a model of the chemical bond to be rooted in quantum mechanics. A good model must in addition provide insight and possess predictive power. Our molecular orbital (MO) model of the chemical bond, in particular, the associated energy-decomposition approach satisfies all these conditions. On the other hand, Atoms-in-Molecules (AIM) theory is only rooted in quantum mechanics as far as its mathematical framework is concerned. The physical status of its central concepts is not so clear. In particular, "bond paths" and "bond critical points" are once more confirmed not to be indicators of a stabilizing interaction. Moreover, AIM theory lacks any predictive power. We also address specific questions raised in the preceding paper. Finally, interpreting chemical bonding implies choosing a perspective on this phenomenon. That there are many perspectives is a matter of fact and this is in no way unphysical. What is unscientific is to claim uniqueness and truth for one of these choices, namely AIM, and to dismiss on this ground all other approaches.