All I was getting at was that you wrote a huge post talking about how you hate when members don't post useful replies, yet you posted a rant that had nothing to do with the OP. So basically, you were one of the members that you were ranting about when you posted that.
Sort of a catch-22, isn't it? Since my post was a direct response to another post that was a direct (if useless) response to yet another post, it seemed to make the most sense to post my post in the same area as the post about which I was posting, regardless of its applicability to the original post.
Would you that I post my post about a post in an unrelated post, far and away from the original post about which I was posting? Does it not seem like more of a rant to begin an entirely new post containing nothing but a rant, instead of pointing out an example that makes my point, and then commenting on it?
Anyway. This has been an entertaining diversion from my real job, but I don't want to get dragged into a endless chicken-and-egg debate over it. My point was simply that, in my opinion, the forum would be better served if responders simply tried to answer the original question. Perhaps I would have better made my point if I'd included the answer about the ADC mailing in my first post. Then again, maybe that sixth sentence would've pushed you right over the edge; after all, I'd already written "...a huge post..."