instead of supplying "boilerplate" documents to people, i had intended that you include either:& 1) the actual doc(s) you sent to the agency being discussed, or 2) an example of such.


the problem with learning these processes is just that - generally one learns the process but falls flat on the specifics.& there must be some way to teach the specifics w/o necessarily giving a "boilerplate" (which everyone should realize doesn't always work) from which to copy.


the tool is only as good as the craftsman using it.&


i know that attempting to find good documents to use as a start for my situations is nigh on impossible - i've tried searching using many different parameters and came up with nada.& process/theory/general things are easy to find by contrast.


so, i'd say that your experiences, while worth a good read, would also still be best backed up by showing what you have done.& caveat emptor.


while i know oj was found NG of the criminal act of murder, i had basically really not given a fig about much of that mess, i didn't know he was found guilty in civil court.


i think in your case if you published documents that worked for you, and you have the evidence, obviously, to back up that claim, you'd be safe as long as you didn't go beyond that claim ("this worked for me."& instead of "this worked for me so it will work for you."& in the first version you don't claim it will work for anyone else).& the person who screwed up would have to claim & prove malicious intent on your behalf.


besides, knowing what you know, i'm sure you'd make that impossible - as it would already be so.


i'm still of the opinion you could publish your material safely - as long as you don't claim the documents will work (like CTC3 does) beyond what you had done with them.


as we all know, or should know, everybody's situation is slightly different and requires some fresh perspective.


jon