Olio (1996) critically reviewed an article by Poole, Lindsay, Memon, and Bull (1995) that reported surveys of clinicians' beliefs and practices regarding their clients' memories of childhood sexual abuse. Olio's article made several apt points that correctly identified limitations on the kinds of conclusions that can be drawn from the Poole et al. data, but it also made several erroneous claims. Some of these errors have been repeated in articles citing Olio by Pope (1996, 1997) and Brown (1998). In this commentary we respond to those of Olio's criticisms with which we disagree, next briefly comment on limitations of the Poole et al. data, and then turn to a more general discussion of ways in which the Poole et al. data have sometimes been misinterpreted by both sides of the controversy regarding recovered-memory experiences.