We thank the referee and editor for their comments to strengthen the presentation of our results. We have modified the text to respond to all the issues and have elaborated on the changes below. Most of the recommended changes are addressed in the previous six papers in this series. We have attempted to refer to the discussions on those papers are frequently as possible so as not to increase the paper charges in this paper. The major issues presented by the referee and editor fall into three categories; membership/sample selection, errors and the meaning of the colors with respect to star formation. In order; membership is not a critical problem for several reasons. Foremost is the fact that is this a redshifted filter system such that the photometry is done in the rest frame of the cluster. Multicolor indices are the method we use to eliminate foreground/background contamination. We have presented this method six times in the journals, we have simulated the effects of cluster velocity dispersion, we have compared color indices to objects with known redshifts. All this have been published many times and it is becoming tiresome to keep repeating these results. We have expanded the text to allude to the relevant discussions and diagrams in previous papers. Object selection is simply photometric, i.e. the object was required to be detected in all four filters at the 3 sigma level. A little over 40% of the sample had color indices indicating non-membership, which is in agreement for expected values based on field luminosity functions. While this is not proof for our method with respect to this cluster, we have no reason to believe that our method is any less effective in this paper as in the previous 17 clusters we have studied. The photometry errors are in the data files, however we did fail to plot them in the diagrams for clarity. We have expanded the text to discuss the errors and have plotted the error bars in Figures 1-4. The figures are now less informative, but more accurate. Lastly, the meaning of the colors in this photometry system. The Stromgren system maps extremely well into the UBV system, that is the content of the Matsushima reference. This, of course, is to be expected since uvby samples the same region as UBV, only more finely. With respect to star formation and the age of the underlying stellar population, this is discussed extensively in Rakos, Maindl, and Schombert (1996), Rakos and Schombert (1995) and Schombert et al. (1993). This is also discussed in the text, but the referee has requested we eliminate those sections (comment #10). Regardless of the models and uniqueness of age and star formation, the main point of this paper is to compare the photometric classification system outlined in Rakos, Maindl, and Schombert (1996) to a distant cluster. In Rakos, Maindl, and Schombert (1996) a set of spectrophotometry data was convolved to our filter system. The templates were classified by their spectroscopy, and various boundaries for classification were determined empirically from the various color-color plots. Inspect of the figures in that paper demonstrates that the four classes (elliptical, spiral/irregular, Seyfert, starburst) are quite distinct. This really has nothing to do with the meaning of the color system, but rather the confidence in the empirical classification system, which we believe is high. We have expanded the text to emphasis the empirical nature of this system. The referee also states in his/her report that our conclusions are over stated based on our data. We disagree, of course, but have attempted to ease the referee's nervousness by expanding the discussion to other possible interpretations. We still stand by our conclusions, but we have attempted to give more time and page space to other viewpoints. In general, we have expanded sections to address the issues presented in this report. With respect to individual comments from the report, here are our responses: Editor's comments: 1) There is some confusion here, we didn't mean to state the objects fade below detection of any survey, just below the completeness magnitude of this survey. Since we are focused on the bright end of the luminosity function we meant to state that the objects would fade below our magnitude limit of 1/2 L*. We have rewritten the text to clarify this point. 2) A_V > 2 mags is severe, could be 1 mag, could be 0.1 mags, all depending on what was the original color of the object. We have modified text to indicate the range of possible reddenings and the fact that we can not determine the exact amounts on an object by object basis. Here are our responses to the referee's comments, he/she must be a C programmer since he/she begins with 0: 0) We have toned down our statements, see comment 26. 1) ok 2) ok 3) We have expanded our text to discuss selection and membership criteria. 4) ok 5) As discussed above, the effects of cluster velocity dispersion are well simulated in the first paper of the series. A quick calculation can demonstrate this, assume a shift of 1000 km/s from cluster center (a high value). This would mean a shift in 13 angstroms at 4000, or 7% the width of our filters. The edges of our filters are about 1/2 power at the 7% point, giving a change in the total flux of, at most, 4% or 0.04 mags. This assumes a worst case scenario (i.e. sharp feature in the spectrum), our simulations indicate less than 0.007 mags of error for velocities less than 1000. 6) We have added a larger discussion on errors and have plotted the errors bars on the figures. 7) ok 8) ok 9) Yes, M_B, this has been added to text. 10) We have shortened the text as requested. 11) ok 12) ok 13) The referee is correct in that the extinction vector is simply for reference. Most of the starburst systems have less than 1 mag of extinction. The text has been modified to mention this point. 14) ok 15) The ratio of present-day E/S0/Sp is from the Oemler review, which was referenced. 16) The referee is absolutely correct here. We have misused the term `eliminate' when we should have stated that their luminosities are such that they are not counted in morphological studies of the bright-end of a cluster's population. We have modified the text to make this more clear. 17) ok 18) ok 19) ok 20) ok 21) Rather than elaborate on what was an obvious error in the Koo Cl0016 paper, we have dropped this paragraph. 22) ok 23) The referee needs to re-inspect Figure 4. Of the 16 objects above 18 mag, only 2 are red E/S0's. Figure 5 clearly demonstrates this. Perhaps this is some confusion on the part of the sentence `regardless of morphological type'. We mean that considering only mag and color, the brightest galaxies are blue. 24) We meant faded below the detection limits of this, and most other, distant cluster surveys. We have rephrased this section to agree with the Koo results that the population will fade to normal dwarf galaxy luminosities. 25) ok 26) We strongly disagree with the referee's comment that the boundaries of photometric classification are `artificial'. They are empirical and we have been honest in our uncertainties, but never stated that they were `very uncertain'. The error bars have been included in Figures 1-4 and we believe our original conclusions still stand. The various populations are distinct, on average, uncertain for objects near the edges. If we were making claims based on individual objects, then we would agree with the referee that objects near the boundaries have less confidence. However, we are making a statistical argument here and we stand-by our conclusion that the blue Butcher-Oemler galaxies have color signatures that indicate they are objects with colors similar to present-day spiral and irregulars, i.e. normal star formation rates. The referee's second point is confusing. He/She states that 1/3 of the Sp/Irr data have bz-yz<0.15, vz-yz<0.15 and mz>-0.15 (we think the referee means mz<-0.15). This is true. And 1/3 of the galaxies in the Rakos etal 1996 paper also have colors below this limit, in disagreement with the claim of the referee that `only one true spiral' lies in this parameter space. We believe the referee has been trying to count symbols on a Figure, rather than actually examining the data. 27) ok 28) No, they say tidally induced, we interpret tides to mean gravity. For the sake of accuracy, we have changed gravity to tides. 29) ok 30) Again, we meant faded below bright luminosity realms. We have corrected this statement to read `must either be destroyed or reduced to the luminosity of dwarf galaxies'. 31) ok 32) ok 33) ok 34) ok 35) ok, all the current references are in the text.