I guess we agree to disagree re: offering opinions as opposed to asking questions. The opinion may generate more opinions/questions from others for response from someone more in-the-know.

Perhaps it's just our unique perspectives on how a conversation is conducted. In a social setting (as is this board), do YOU always converse purely by asking questions and responding to questions (but only when fully knowledgeable of the topic)? Or do you converse with throwing out a thought and receiving thoughts from others and discussing them? While your suggested approach would likely be more efficient, IMO this forum would dry up quick.

A further thought is that the person offering the opinion must be assumed to have thought about it, and based on their knowledge (however limited) have come to a conclusion, and post it. In other words, IMO it seems unlikely that people would naturally (unless an agenda is in play) post an opinion without THEM believing it has merit. It's "normal". It's just like all the times you've posted your opinions from a legal background perspective. While you almost always caveat as appropriate (e.g., "I am not a patent/licensing attorney"), and it is appreciated, it seems under your guidelines you should not post those opinions, as you may not be adequately astute in a general sense, and because you likely do not know the full details of the specific matter at hand.

We all have varying levels of knowledge on a wide variety of subjects; some are just "closer" to complete awareness than others. Where do each of us draw that line, recognizing each is in "competition" (so to speak) with other posters? Is it necessary to direct every opinion or bit of conjecture as a question to the person you perceive is most knowledgeable, or is it acceptable to just "throw it out there" along with some reasonable (hopefully) basis suggesting the opinion/conjecture has merit?

FWIW,

SGE