In this paper we argue that Steglich-Petersen's response to Owens' Exclusivity Objection
does not work. Our first point is that the examples Steglich-Petersen uses to demonstrate his
argument do not work because they employ an undefended conception of the truth aim not
shared by his target (and officially eschewed by Steglich-Petersen himself). Secondly we will
make the point that deliberating over whether to form a belief about p is not part of the belief
forming process. When an agent enters into this process of deliberation, he has not, contra …