on the relativity of peer-reviews

Got the reviews back on my TRB paper yesterday afternoon. They're uniformly pretty good, but some hilariously contradict each other on the fundamental readability of the paper (see below), and one is a bit over the top. In any case, I'll be heading to DC in January :)

(some gems. paraphrased, of course...):

Reviewer 1: Paper was specific and narrowly focused. This worked well.

Reviewer 2: Well-written, easy to follow, not a single error of syntax detectable.

Reviewer 3: Very clearly organized. Objectives and findings well-stated.

Reviewer 4: Paper is unfocused and leaves the reader confused.

Srsly?! In my response can I just cite Reviewers 1-3 to counteract Reviewer 4?