Bob78164 writes: .. if you agree with me that I should be publicly credited by TMF for [an idea]...I reply: Don't hold your breath, Bob. It took a lot of prodding to get Peter Thelander's article acknowledged, and even then Fool HQ attributed it to Roy in some blurb. There have been other examples.One significant flaw at the Fool is that Fool HQ seems incapable of acknowledging the contributions of the community.[*] They sort of know it, but not in their heart of hearts. Many of us have contributed, and borrowed, and even stolen ideas; but on this board at least, people are at pains to acknowledge their debts.The Fool, you may have noticed, has an unlimited license to use your, and my, contributions in any way it sees fit. I'm no lawyer, but I suppose that use need not include attribution.If the unattributed use actually does good out there in vacuumland, that has to be good, unattributed or not, and we can sleep better for having done a good deed. And, the people who are really watching, our fellow contributors, notice. We know we won't be paid, so the lack of acknowledgement is, to me, only a pseudo-indignity. Others feel more strongly, by far, than I do on this. If I truly change my mind I'll be outta here.[*] the March 17 issue of PC Magazine has a cover story on the top 100 Web sites, according to some author. The Fool is on the list, and is one of 31 listed as a particular fave. The thing they really like is not the portfolio charting or commentary, but the boards.