Paternoster and Brame's conceptual error centers on their claim that the only reason criminal and analogous behaviors should be correlated is through the individual's level of self-control. The basis for such a claim is unclear and is inconsistent with Gottfredson and Hirschi's emphasis on the multi-dimensionality of crime. Gottfredson and Hirschi repeatedly use multiple indicators and scales of criminal acts--not specific criminal acts--to develop their argument for the general nature of criminal behavior. In contrast, Paternoster and Brame argue incorrectly that the theory hypothesizes the independence of these acts once self-control has been taken into account. Because the conclusion to Paternoster and Brame's study is based on a misrepresentation of the theory and on a misinterpretation of the statistical model, their results should not be construed as seriously damaging evidence to Gottfredson and Hirschi's theory. Second, and independent of concerns about the validity of the general theory of crime, bivariate and multivariate probit models provide powerful statistical tools for examining bivariate and multivariate outcome measures, respectively. Note, references