Three other active posters on the list.  There is hope yet.  I just don't care for some of the personal attacks.
> Bomhard often has IE e/o/nothing cooresponding to AA a/schwa. But
> already Møller (or was it Cuny) proposed a/schwa for IE, as a more
> consistent system (the e/o/nothing ablaut is based on Greek alone).
That's a good proposal.  It might indicate a "a-schwa" stage in earlier IE moving towards a "e-o" stage, analogous to the "glottal phase" and how t/t'/d became t/d/dh.  Another "missing link" found...
> > Second, we might talk about reducing the overabundant sibilant
> > inventory and chucking out some of the fricatives and affricates.
> > Let's face it folks, the Nostratic phonological system as it often
> > stands is overly extravagant, to say the least.
I'm becoming more convinced that sibilants, be they voiceless or voiced, alveolar or postalveolar, are allophones of the corresponding non-glottal affricate (s ~ ts, sh ~ ch).  That's what Afro-Asiatic seems to have.  But the fact that Kartvelian has two sets of alveolar sibilants, with pairs labeled as s ~ s1, c ~ c1 etc.  I'd have to investigate further, but the only info I can get on the Web is Georgian.
My "Semitoform" proposal for PN, which I won't claim to be authoritative:
alv: s   dz  c   c'   (remember, c = ts)
pal: s^  dz^ c^  c^'
(And I'll add the laterals hl, tl, tl'; there seems to be little or no evidence of a separate dl.)
Dolgopolsky on the other hand has four sets of sibilants (alveolar, palatized, postalveolar, lateral), and he constructs not only the voiced-voiceless-voiceless glottalized affricates but both the voiceless and voiced fricatives (s and z that is).  He's pretty liberal on his PN consonant inventory, even including *retroflex* nasal and lateral!
So I'm more in favor of Bomhard's system.  Except he shows his "palatals" not as c-hachek and s-hachek, but dy, ty, t'y, sy.  He uses the same symbols for Afro-Asiatic.  My knowledge of Chadic and Cushitic is very limited though, and my understanding of AA is probably way too Semitocentric.  Bomhard seems to favor IE and Semitic a lot in his version of Nostratic.
[I'm beginning to want to do my own reconstruction of PN; too bad I don't have any access to the necessary materials...]
As for the fact that all the serious linguists (I am not one of these), there's just so much more to discuss about IE.