>>Thats a bit of a cheap shot...
>
>Consider it a precieved contradition demanding clarification.
>

You mean perceived?

>>Still, the number of articles and contributions one makes does lend a bit more weight to the credibility that one brings to the party.
>
>So, article writers are allowed to call attention to there elitism, but volunteers that help real people with real problems can not be rewarded*? Not that I have an opinion, just trying to understand.
>

The ADO article was done on a volunteer basis. If anybody has tried to break down the barriers between the masses and the "elite few", it has been I. Further, it has been done to me detriment. i.e., I have paid a price for this.


>*Update: awarded meaning being labeled an expert or guru.
>
>No offense, but I think you're not being honest with yourself. Thats advice that you can accept or reject it.
>

Advice is something that can be used to act upon. What you cite here is a statement of perceived fact on your part.


>As far as your point about people blindly following advice, yes, thats "a bad thing" regardless of the medium (wether books, online discussion, or the court room) and who is giving the advice. Fortunately, I don't think it happens as often as you suggest it does; but thats anyone's guess.

On one hand, you don't think it happens as often as I suggest. OTOH, you say it is anybody's guess. In one fell swoop, you contradicted you're own statement.