respondents to questions

[Greg J]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
you people all (well, not all, but most) need to calm down and realize this isn't an entirely dumb question.

and because the poster is new, how's about we all act normal?

i don't think certain threads would have been killed if made by certain posters

[/ QUOTE ]
I thought the answers were good. OP asked if there was a way to "determine the skill level and profitability" of posters. How would you answer that question?

We can start a "respected poster" thread if you want. It'll probably end up similar to the archive one. Maybe people are just being coy and waiting for someone else to start listing people so they can see if they're included.

Regardless, OP never asked for a list. And his tone left much to be desired, hence our responses.

[/ QUOTE ]

sure.
i think it was tonal too.
just trying to point out what i pointed out.

[/ QUOTE ]

It realy boils down to the fact that in most threads, even on those where there is no definative consensus, there is something that will be benificial. Just because someone says something that is incorrect does not mean it is entirely meritless. The discourse itself is beneficial. In trying to explain that to OP he turned into a total ass, and demonstrated what I found to be intellectual laziness (it's right or it's wrong, and wrong = bad, gamesetmatch, stfu). And he was correctly smacked down.