... in our hobby, Steve. Forthrightness and full disclosure, as well.

Archie said:

>> Now, I'm not saying that I would not answer your hypothetical question you posed ...

I agree with that -- and I'm not saying I personally wouldn't answer such a question, either. I would, in the interest of full disclosure, provide accurate information re number of chips, condition, etc. (in the unlikely event that I found something good about which the question was likely to be asked! )

Archie continued:

>> ... all I'm saying is that I am not (key word) "OBLIGATED" to answer it.

But, I agree with this, too. While I'd rather see everyone in the hobby be competely upfront about chip finds, I think it is unrealistic to expect that to occur, particularly with high end chips. And I took Archie's use of the term "OBLIGATED" in quotes and all caps to mean some kind of legal or otherwise enforceable obligation, rather than an informal obligation among friends.

Perhaps this comment was a little to formal (or legalistic):

>> Most businesses refer to this type of information as "proprietary"
>> and go to great lengths to protect it.

It nevertheless is true and to the extent that our hobby has become more businesslike, we're going to have to (like it or not) deal with it.

I sympathize with the sense of "loss of innocence" that you and others are feeling, as I feel it, too. I don't go as far back as some of you, but I have been collecting more than 10 years now and don't like many of the changes I've seen.

----- jim o\-S