>>You certainly make worthwhile contributions and expand the knowledge base of the UT with your posts. I'm being facetious about points for RTFM, but we need to differentiate the points game from the valuable posts indicators. One creates a little encouragement for participation, while the other builds us a worthwhile FAQ.
>
>I know that I haven't been doing much lately with either the API section, FAQ or files. Speaking of the API section, have you played around with any of the event logging functions under NT/2K?
>

I might have a class lying around somewhere that talks to the Event Log...I take it I have a guinea pi...erm...beta test volunteer?

>>>Seriously, I do think that the system has some merit in that it does reward folks in a tangible way that they might not otherwise be able to receive. Of course, that's about it.
>>>
>>>OTOH, I've seen a number of solutions rewarded based on a "who was first" rather than who gave the best solution. IMO, however, this isn't a "fixable" situation.
>>>
>>
>>Agreed; I'm not crying "Waaaah, I don't have enuf points < sniffle > < whimper >". I think that people need to distinguish between the need to encourage participation and the need to build a solid base of data on the product and related resources (like the WSH!)
>
>Understood from the beginning.< s >

...and here I thought you felt I was only in it for the fringe benefits...

>>>I certainly hope that no one takes the "standings" as any indicator of technical accuracy. While it may be some indication of a person's abilities, it's no guarantee that the answer given is correct.
>>
>>You're kidding, you mean three gold stars doesn't guarentee infallibility? < BEG >
>
>If it did Sergey would be Pope!:-)

Do we have to kiss his ring?