I like it when my nits are picked. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> Oh wait, did that come out wrong? <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /><br /><br />Yeah I know. You want a tortured paragraph? Try this:<br /><br />Two things in my defense: I wanted to use the phrase 'per se' but that always seems to lead to confusion, so I said 'as such'. Not that that answers the objection but it sets it up. The second thing is the fine distinction between a depth that can be counted on to go 'this much' deep across the breadth of subjects to be expected, and the depth that either goes 'a whole bunch more that just that' within that breadth, or, and more to the point here, into a stunning amount of depth on a subject that would not be expected to within the breadth.<br /><br />hehehehe, clear as mud, right?<br /><br />IOW, A) a question can get asked about a core space subject and a guy will go "yes, well I just ran a computer simulation of that just last week and here's a piddly little detail you missed - to me that extreme depth goes beyond the expected everyday breadth and depth. B) A question can be asked, maybe off topic within a thread for example, about some subject, like oh I don't know, antiques or something, and poof up pops some long-time lurker that knows everything about the object. Not a core subject but the diversity of this community provides that one expert out of nowhere. <br /><br />OK, I think I've got it at last:<br /><br />It's like a broad and deep pond of knowledge but both the bottom and the perimeter are very irregular. (Whew, am I off the hook now?) <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>