William,

As I read your reply, it's in essence positive and not what Vlad reads in it: ("Also, as William Sanders said, you did not said anything except complains"). Hope you agree.

With regard to your question: I'm not asking for yet another category that answers questions. I think that the current categories are excellent for that purpose. I'm asking for a category especcially for those who like fundamental discussions. I think that such a category can prevent, what you call, 'flame-wars' in the other categories. Also, in the other categories those who reply can include links to relevant fundamental discussions, thus further decreasing the chance that an answer is in fact wrong.

Your re-assign idea requires a moderator, I guess. Sounds okay to me. Maybe the originator of the thread can also be a moderator.


>[SNIP]
>Peter - I agree with everything you said here - but I have a question.
>WHAT new category did you want ?
>something like: Real answers without flame-wars. ??
>or 'Flame-War-less discussion'
>or 'Staid Technical questions with Staid Technical Answers'
>
>I get too fed up with reading answers that look like the 3rd chapter of the book was read. I get too fed up reading responses that are tongue in cheek. I get too fed up with the WRONG answer...
>maybe we should have a dual category that anyone can re-assign after the posting -
>for example -
>some one posts a question... but the answers given don't really answer the question.
>So the first category might be 'forms' and the 2nd category would be 'useless replies'
>
>Not sure where this would go, and not sure if the sysop can provide for it - but hey...
>if 55 % or better is chaff, why are we reading it???
>as always - YMMV
>mondo regards [Bill]