>Here is the defintion that I used and did not make up:
>
>ex·pert Pronunciation Key (kspûrt)
>n.
>A person with a high degree of skill in or knowledge of a certain subject.
>
>
>I believe there are people with a higher degree of skill or knowledge in .NET than myself. Therefore, I do not qualify as an expert. Only those with the highest level of knowledge possessed today qualify.
>
>
>>Basically, my point is you are fabricating these defintions to win a debate with Jim. Thats pretty lousy.
>>
>
>Your point has been rendered moot.

Not so quick there, John. You only show 2/3rds of your "definition". You don't show here the part you also included immediately afterwards, namely "If a group of people have completed chapter 1 and the rest of the world has not opened the book yet, the folks that have started are de facto experts. ".

Your qualification added here comes closer, but I still can't agree with it, nor do I believe that any other rational person would. You added here: "Therefore, I do not qualify as an expert. Only those with the highest level of knowledge possessed today qualify.". This could be true if .NET was a long stable product with widespread thorough and accurate documentation. But that is decidedly NOT the case today, and by my reckoning it will be at least 4-5 years before it can even come close to being so. What anyone may "possess today" amounts to no more than a fart in a windstorm. It is virtually impossible for anyone to master such a deep and wide product when it hasn't even been completed yet!
I tried to use the analogy of space travel. The point was that Alan Shepard 'flew' around 1960. By your definition he was the undisputed "expert" of space travel in the U.S. Yet all he had to do was to sit there and mumble a few words. Even by the end of the moon missions no one really qualified as an "expert" in space travel. I believe that, after 100+ shuttle mission, there are now probably several.

SNIP