I think you've forgotten the conversation trail.
You claimed that reworking didn't apply to small, delicate fossils. I then proposed Woodmorappe's work as being real problems since they involved small, delicate fossils, the very ones you claim cannot be reworked. You failed to answer.
As for Morton's 'response'. All I saw was more misrepresentation of Woodmorappe, as expected.
Wrong. First I never said "small" or "delicate" applied necessarily or in general to fossils whose position cannot be explained by "reworking". I only used those terms in respect to a specific and incidental example I happened to give ("small, delicate bones like those of most fishes"). There are of course plenty of other fossils that could never be explained by reworking, such as complete, articulated skeletons, fossils composed of thin, carbonate films, and etc.
Second I did answer, pointing out that the list of out of order fossils I'd seen from "Woodmorappe" previously (you never gave a specific link) was mostly pollen, spores and the like. These are small but NOT delicate.
Third neither you (nor "Woodmorappe") have ever documented the gratitous, i.e. ad hoc, use of "reworking" to explain otherwise anomalous fossils. It is, of course, possible to have specific evidence (independent of any evolutionary considerations) for fossil reworking.