Seth, these are important questions. I'm planning to address as many of them as we have time for on Tuesday, and will post replies here and at my blog.

I do think Seth's angle was a bit harsh here. Though we did cross paths for the first time when examining these issues a year ago. I would have stated the challenge, as such: What have we learned in a year? What has stood in our way towards getting serious examinations of issues such as credibility, fairness.

And yes, as Seth and I have corresponded on, and as I've alluded to most obliquely in my post on white swan consultants, the financial pressures are likely the factors that are the greatest obstacles.

I actually have come up with a model to examine the credibility problem, and I may actually get it published online elsewhere in addition to Civilities... if not by Tuesday, I'll send you and Dan a draft.

Dan: The deep problem is, how to know any answer is true, rather than popular? That's an undercurrent to the unhappiness with the hype, the marketing. I don't think *you'll* do the following, but one kind of "answer" from some A-list'ers would just be to personally attack me as an elitist who doesn't "get it", or worse.

Jon: As I wrote, some of my take here is "fueled by my frustrations". What stands in our way is that there's little money and scant gurudom to be had in "serious examinations of issues such as credibility, fairness". You can't make *$100 MILLION DOLLARS* from doing that. That's why all the action is on how to outsource creative labor, hopefully for free by making it a lottery where a very few get low-money contract jobs and everyone else gets, err, the satisfaction of having participated in the "conversation".