Peer review is wild. It's like if you took your car to mechanic and one mec said: "we noticed all your doors have rusted out, you should fix those" and another said: "LOVE THE RUSTED DOORS, but have you considered adding a flame thrower?" and a third said: "it's not a horse."

what makes the response letter so wild is that it's like "Reviewer 3, thank you for pointing out that our car with rusted doors is not a horse. We agree that it is indeed not a horse and that our car is limited by it's not horsiness. We have noted this limitation on page X."

Of course, if reviewer 3 is particularly ornery, the response letter looks like this: “reviewer 3, we agree that the omission of a horse from our car was a grave oversight on our part, accordingly we have installed a bed in the backseat and taken the Godfather option”