Dear Sam,

thanks for the look at the revised version, also to the referee for the
specific comment on separating observations from speculations.
We acknowledge that this was not as clear as it should be in the introductory
paragraphs, and we hope to have clearly addressed this issue with the current
revision. With this, we hope to have addressed the issues, and are looking
forward for your reply.

Thanks and Best Regards,

Peng Kian and Christian

--
Changes to the manuscript MN-16-3978-MJ.R1:

1. First paragraph, and beginning of second: We first make clear that there
are some very narrow lines observed, that have currently not been resolved
with some of the spectrometers - this is clearly a statement based on
observations. We also tried to make clearer that the observed line widths are
not much narrower than the instrument resolution, but are simply limited by
the instrument resolution with these specific examples. We think this should
address all wrong attributions of statements on observed line widths the
referee pointed out.

2. In the beginning of the second paragraph, we try to make it more clear that
the laser mechanism responsible for these narrow lines is just a speculation,
and not something that is based on observations so far.

3. Along the same line, we tried to clarify in the beginning of the third
paragraph that, *if* these lines were caused by a lasing mechanism, the
resolution of something like the Keck Echelle Spectrometer would not be
enough to resolve these lines. This should avoid the misleading connection
that could have arisen from the previous version that the real line width may
not be resolved with the Keck spectrometer, and ties it better to the hypothesis
of natural laser lines.

4. In section 7, we specifically refer to the photon rates observed from the
narrow spectral lines in the Weigelt blobs, to make it more clear what numbers
we refer to.