were lost in translation. Lamberts was kind enough to send a PM and further explain some of the NIRC details that I had not read up on. I will post my response to him below. It should clarify the point of yesterdays post. My stance hasn't changed one bit especially now that the S/P has done it's standard pull back. Providing information and links is fantastic but, selling a message with it is not. I won't name posters because quite frankly, I don't care.

"I certainly appreciate more detail as I have not read to the extent that you have regarding the NIRC. I probably didn't make my point clear enough. I was speaking more to the issue of individuals not only posting USPTO documents but, subsequently beating into everyones heads that a decision is definitely forthcoming. I hate to see anyone actually put their money out there based on some anonymous poster. He/She may be correct but it's hardly kosher to insist other posters are clueless if they don't believe the message. It's even more troubling when I see someone could have profited handsomely during the fray. I read the examiners notes and certainly feel like this is about to be concluded but, I would never jump ahead of the USPTO. Better safe than sorry. That was my point. GLTY."