I totally agree - we're not all experts on everything, and if being expert or an "authority" on something were a pre-requisite to posting, this board would be pretty "blank".

I fired on mvaar on the defense contracting thing for two reasons:

1) It is something that I KNOW a lot about, and he obviously doesn't.

2) He made his statements as if they were fact.

If he'd thrown in those three little letters that most here rightly use generously (i.e. "IMO"), it wouldn't be so bad. But the fact that we are "blessed" with a lot of strong expertise on this board exagerates the hazzard when those three friggin' letters are omitted. And the more highly respected the poster, the greater the hazzard.

Interesting you mentioned Ron in your post. I do really miss his input, and sincerely regret any influence I may have had on his decision to "go silent". But it was the same thing as above I had a problem with, and caused the dispute he got into with Greeneyes. If you don't absolutely KNOW something as fact (or if you want to protect a source), throw in the IMO! That was my only gripe. Ron went to great lengths to make it clear that he is not a patent attorney in his posts - the right thing to do. He would dedicate a sentence to such. But on something off-the-wall and trivial, he couldn't throw in an "IMO"? I guess I'm just WAY TOO sensitive about it.... apparently so was he (in the opposite direction).

But I can certainly understand his concerns about time dedicated here - time that could be spent more personally productive with work and family. Sure can't knock him for that! Good, smart guy with great insight - his return would be very welcome (and I'd gladly overlook any lacking "IMOs"!). But, IMO (!), he'd be nuts to jump back in right now with all these filings hanging! Addressing them would be a full-time job - with OT, and no compensation!

JMHOs,

SGE