FoF, a serious institution?

Recently, it has been suggested that FoF is not a serious scholarly forum, and that serious research oriented topics have only started appearing in the past 2 or 3 months.

I exhort all FoF's to read the list below, and note that as early as May 2005 (one month after the birth of the blog), scholarly discussions were commonplace. I turn your attention to the following posts/subjects:

May 2005:
Thesis Outline (Chris)
Coprography
The Northern Periphery

June 2005:
Definitions of the Fremont

July 2005:
Homosexual Marriage

August 2005:
Various academic conferences
Yoder's Thesis
The Hohokam
Paul Minnis and the Fremont

September 2005:
Fremont Subsistence
The RMAC

October 2005:
The importance of Technoarchaeology
What makes a Fremont?
Fremont Mortuary Practices
Aaron's Tech Blog(sorry, I'm biased)
Historic maps of Hohokam sites
Pre-Clovis stuff with Adovasio
The importance of blogs in academia
The Three Corners

November 2005:
Fremont Production
Optimal Foraging
The Semester in Review feature (still waiting to see a few...)
The SW symposium
Projectile points in the GB
Presence of the GB in American Antiquity

December 2005:
Fremont site occupation/mounds
Various SIRs

January 2006
Paleoclimates in the EGB
Moqui Marbles and Hopi ideology
Multi-disciplinary approaches
The SW symposium

Since May, we have had at least one serious or thought-provoking post per month. That's pretty good if you ask me. Of course there are jokes, there are fun posts, and there are non-research oriented discussions, but for the most part we have done some pretty good stuff so far.

I think the above list tesitfies to the legitimacy of this blog. It has spawned at least two splinter blogs (Chris' Thesis blog, and my tech blog), and provided an excellent forum to bounce ideas around. Just making a point.