Swingman wrote:

Not used to seeing "ignorance" used as a noun, it took me a while to
digest that! ; )

I always appreciate the efforts anyone makes to inform!

LOL ... sound as if you mean it, Bill!
I wasn't even sure I understood the verbage I was replying to above, and
even less so once I posted.
However, I still apprecriate the efforts anyone makes to inform/explain,
unless they are clueless (I'm
censoring myself).



BTW, Scott "wrote" none of the above ... he will likely not appreciate
the attribution.

Well, he was arguing for the side of the issue I was on at one point,
and I appreciated his help.
I'll apologize to him for for anything he "doesn't appreciate"!

I sort of hate to bring it up, but if anyone publishes content of a 3rd
party, then they are reponsible for
it's content if they are familiar with it--and I think they have a duty
to become familiar with it with the
passage of time. The publisher ought not to be able to say, "Well, my
head was in the sand" and over
there I wrote that I am "not responsible". At least, I suspect that a
court would rule that way if real damages
were incurred.

Bill