>Cindy:
>
>> Do you think it would be better (for Chuck or for the community in general) if Craig had said nothing at all?
>
>Yes!! Discouraging people from trying something with no explanation where he was coming from is very bad in my book. Craig cited a few references in a later post and that gave Chuck the possibility of evaluate the situation. Note that still didn't answer the original question but at least he made Chuck aware that there are some things to consider before he starts playing around with colors (a good response IMO). I had a serious problem with Craig's first post because it was expressed as a commandment from an expert to a beginner with no way for the beginner to verify or learn from the statement.
>
>I hate it when someone tells me someone tells something cannot or should not be done with no explanation... My brother and I have invented a fair number of things that people told us could not be done. We fail most of the time but we win often enough to warrant us pursuing our crative efforts.
>
>Daniel

Hmm - I see your point of view.

Let's assume that Craig would usually post an explanation which is more along the lines of what you would want to see, and there would be no controversy, but I happen to know that Craig has been impossibly busy lately.

In theory, are you discouraging people from trying to "help out" if they can't help out "perfectly enough?" If that is the case, I should just give up entirely, because I have certainly posted incorrect information, incomplete information, offensive comments, etc.

The most positive thing you could have done in the situation is to add a comment to the discussion like "To expand on what Craig said, you might enjoy reading ... because ..."