There is a new theory that Burushaski is related to Kartvelian, put forward by Holst (2017). Čašule (2017), published in this journal, made various statements about this new theory. Čašule says that he is not convinced by it and seeks to explain why he is not. Unfortunately, his assessment contains a number of misunderstandings, statements which do not entirely match the facts of Holst (2017), and other features which can be regarded as problematic. In addition, there are many issues on which divided opinions are possible. Given this, the present paper is intended to react to Čašule (2017). While doing this, new issues come into the debate.