Conclusions regarding memory have such far-reaching consequences for everything from science to the humanities, as well as for everyday life that it seems that great care should be taken in this area. I would prefer in general for this debate to simply continue and not collapse to any one dominant position,. I do wonder why memories labelled as 'repressed' should be treated any differently from any other potential memory. If repressed memories as treated as automatically suspect due to their 'origin', then it seems that memory itself should be under assault as well. That memories are subject to modification is no secret, and surely this is not limited to repressed memories. Interpretation is always going to be involved in memory formation and retrieval. This raises the question, how much of anyone's memory is 'true', and what if anything can determine the 'truth' of that memory. Extrapolating from that, how much of public consensual knowledge can be regarded as truth, and how is that truth being mediated in group settings? The implication of course is that group memory is no more reliable than individual memory, There are so many 'landmines', philosophical, scientific, logical in this area, that any definative position seems unlikely. Under these circumstances it seems more useful to look at the institutional framings of the issue instead.