Several objections to this argument have been made. First, it is worth considering whether one couldn’t accept the idea, for reasons such as those outlined above, that in asserting one represents oneself as knowing, while not accepting the knowledge rule. According to Matt Weiner (2005), for instance, the knowledge rule is too strong, and the cases which motivate it can be handled by assuming the rule that proper assertions be true, along with conversational norms governing all speech acts. (Other accounts on which proper assertion requires something weaker than knowledge include Bach 2008, Douven 2006, Lackey 2007, and McKinnon 2015.) Second, Adam Leite (2007) argues that the direct argument for EC from the knowledge account of assertion rests on an equivocation on the notion of ‘warranted assertability’. (See too Bach 2005, 73–4, who also suggests that DeRose’s argument relies too heavily on first-person “knowledge” claims). In a similar spirit, John Turri’s “speech act contextualism” (2010) is expressly designed to show how the knowledge account of assertion is compatible with Epistemic Invariantism. Finally, Thomas Blackson (2004) argues, as Williamson (2005a, 111, n. 20) suggests, that DeRose’s argument does not favor EC over another recent view, Subject Sensitive Invariantism (see Section 6). Independently of EC, the relation between knowledge and assertion has been the subject of much recent discussion (see Pagin 2016, Section 6.2).