Old-Mil hasn't had much to say since he was called out for equating the "hopeful Monster" with punctuated equilibrium. It's one thing for the quote miners to do this, quite another for some who knows better.
Some of us actually have to accomplish stuff during the day, and these threads tend to grow like triplet repeats. Regarding your mountain-out-of-a-molehill accusation about the hopeful monster theory vs. PE, I see that a bit of explanation is going to be necessary.
First, ask yourself why *either* of these theories came into existence. The answer should be quite obvious. When Darwin first proposed the theory of evolution, his mechanism for evolution was a gradualistic progression driven by natural selection. When Origin of the Species was first published, relatively little was known about the geologic record, and very little was known about genetics.
Now fast forward to the early 1900s. More is known about the fossil record, and still very little is known about genetics. Howeve, the fossil record poses a problem to evolutionists in that instead of providing a record of gradual progression of life, it is more consistent with the fossils that would by left by a "hopeful monster" hypothesis. In particular, transitional forms are absent - as they continue to be to this day.
By the late 1900s, far more is known about genetics - specifically genetic mutations - than was known when saltation was proposed and it is now clear that genetically, saltation is an untenable process...hence the rise of PE.
Both theories are attempts to explain evolution by "alternate routes" and deal with the inability of the fossil record to back up what Darwin had originally proposed.