Alex: Thad, there's no nice way to say this. I have to agree with Dieter - most of your diagrams are simply wrong. Did you do any research before answering? There's nothing wrong with posting "well, I don't know, but this is how I would play" diagrams, but you should always make it clear that that's what they are, not an accepted sequence you know from books/pattern search on Gobase or GoGoD/talking to a pro/etc. Since you don't say anything of the sort here, a weaker player would probably assume you know what you're talking about, unless someone stronger (Dieter, in this case) comes along and points out that you're wrong. It's irresponsible to mislead people in this way.
Please refrain from setting yourself up as an authority unless you've done the research to back up your assertions. There was a certain other user who did this chronically a few months back and it had many of us tearing our hair out. We don't want a repeat.
Bill: Hey, wait a second, Alex! I took a look at the page history. The original poster asked for suggestions, and Thad gave some. He did not set himself up as an authority, but expressed his opinions, and identified himself as the author of those opinions. What are we saying, only dan players offer opinions?
Alex: No, of course I don't think only dan players can offer their opinions. I just think that anyone's opinions should be labelled as such. If I write anything that's purely out of my head, it starts with "My instinct would be," or "Maybe," or "I don't know for sure, but I think" or something of the sort. If I write something that doesn't start like that, it's because it's based on research of some form or another - I'm looking at a joseki, or paraphrasing something I read in a book, or doing a pattern search on Gobase to see what the pros play in similar cases. I think most of the other dans here do the same.
Maybe Thad wasn't intentionally setting himself up as an authority (certainly not to the extent that the "certain other user" I refer to did), but his words sounded like assertion to me, rather than speculation. If everyone starts voicing their opinions without letting the reader know how certain or uncertain they are, then every comment requires the reader to take a look at the author's home page and other writings in order to decide how many grains of salt to take it with - the ideas that actually have facts to back them up get lost in the noise.
Of course, you could argue that things should work the other way - that unqualified speculation should be taken implicitly as such and that arguments that have research to back them up should provide the references. I think things would get too formal and academic that way, though.
zinger: I agree that it is easy to misunderstand the intent of a poster in this way, discerning opinions and speculation from "facts". I myself made a miscommunication of this type in BQM213.
Dieter: I agree with Bill. I posted my diagrams in the same authoritative way as Thad. Maybe the requester will find my suggestions more plausible than Thad's, maybe not. Maybe the requester will take rank difference as an argument for believing who's right. I see Thad's suggestions as justified contributions, though subject to discussion. My contributions are debatable too, and I can only hope they are valuable.
This is a BQM. It's different when reference pages such as joseki, or technique, are cluttered with all kinds of strange plays.
dnerra: Maybe it is worth everyone reminding that there are NO authorities on SL. We just learned that for Benjamin, 4 weeks in a Baduk school were not enough to learn the basics. Now, Benjamin is about 2 stones than the strongest regular contributors here.
Alex: You all make good points. I'll admit to overreacting. As someone who's started many a lengthy BQM discussion, I know very well the value of everyone putting in their two cents, regardless of strength. I still think that the library would be more useful if people communicated their level of certainty (or lack thereof) in their ideas more clearly. Although there are no true authorities on SL, as dnerra says, there are varying levels of strength and varying levels of complexity of questions. A 20 kyu asking a question might not be able to tell if it's simple enough for say a 10 kyu to answer or whether a dan's (or even a professional's) opinion would be needed to answer it adequately. The 10 kyu, however, SHOULD know whether the question is within his ability to answer with a reasonable degree of certainty, and be modest enough to say so when responding. We dans frequently answer questions that are above our heads, simply because there are no top amateurs or professionals available on the library to answer them, but we tend to be careful to let people know when we feel our answers are iffy.