Man, does this exchange illustrate the point of the linked article or what?

I now assume that your original "Quotas" post (6:13 PM) was a serious response to somebody's previous post. As I didn't get the connection, nor whom it would have been addressing, I kinda assumed the post to be poking fun at any attempts at seriousness in this thread by interjecting a bit of absurdity (what did quotas have to do with the linked article or the previous posting?).

Assuming that you were going in a lighter direction, I posted my "play on words" with my Quoters ..... which I immediately sapped of ANY humor potential that might have been there by mis-spelling "quoters".

So, though I thought the humor to be non-existant in my play on words, I was delighted to see what I thought was a bit of play back from you that, to my mind, reinforced the idea that you were trying to be light-hearted. When you said that you had been paid NOT to attribute, I assumed more silliness on your part. On that basis, I posted the $10, huge sum of money post -- thinking that it would be taken a seriously as the concept of $10 being a great sum of money would be taken.

Unfortuantely, for some reason, what I thought was a light-hearted interchange was, to you something completely different.

I will make a mental note and curb my "playfulness". I never even thought of the possibility that those posts of mine could have been read as anything but attempts at humor, however flat they may have fallen in that attempt.