I'm sorry that this paper, "Is Radical Interpretation Possible?" (henceforth RIP), does not address the question its title asks. I wish it did; it is a good question. I can't blame Jerry Fodor and Ernie Lepore for suspecting that "it may turn out that perfectly kosher languages (like, for example, English) aren't radically interpretable"; I share the suspicion. But unfortunately they never discuss, much less demonstrate the inadequacy of, the fairly elaborate account I have developed over the years of how I think it might be done. Instead they demolish, to their own satisfaction, an argument they think is mine, and then "deny that any other plausible reason" has been given for holding that natural languages are radically interpretable. Since the argument they claim to have demolished is not mine, it is a pity they did not explain why they consider the reasons I do give implausible.1 RIP is largely devoted to attacking arguments of what its authors call "form T". As far as I know, I have never endorsed any argument of form T; the authors of RIP refer to no text of mine that contains such an argument. Let me try to make clear the relation of my views to arguments of form T. Premise 1. I do not think I have ever argued for the claim that radical interpretability is a condition of interpretability.2 Not only have I never argued that every language is radically interpretable; I have not even argued that every language can be understood by someone other than its employer, since it would be possible to have a private code no one else could break. I do not think, and have not argued, that radical interpretation of natural languages must be possible; I have argued only that it is possible. The point of the "epistemic position" of the radical interpreter is not that it exhausts the evidence available to an actual interpreter, but that it arguably provides sufficient evidence for interpretation. Premise 2. What, exactly, are we to put for "F"? The only substitution instance Fodor and Lepore ascribe to me is "the principle of charity". It is true