Just using the ideas you have mentioned in your editorial, I see one problem, most posters don't mention what version of SQL Server they are using when asking for help. OP's have posted questions in the SQL Server 2005 forums, get SQL Server 2005 answers, and then complained because they are using SQL Server 2000 and the code provided uses SQL Server 2005 features.

I think there should still be some breakdown between SQL Server 2000 and earlier versions and SQL Server 2005/2008. It is quite possible that many organizations may continue to use at least SQL Server 2000 for several more years as internal systems may not be migrated as long as they continue to provide service to the business. As some would say, why fix something that isn't broken.

My previous employer used Paradox to support remote offices, and the only reason we dropped the system was that Borland was not going to make Paradox Y2K compliant forcing use of that system. The same (or similiar) may happen with existing SQL Server 2000 applications.