ETA on Advanced Class change?

Hmmm... I see you missed the point. Let me try and explain it better...
At 55 the Trooper Vanguard has 22 abilities that belong to the BASE CLASS and only about 15 that belong to the ADVANCED CLASS. Notice how the Bounty Hunter (the mirror of the Trooper) Mercenary has those same 22 abilities in the BASE CLASS and only about 17 that belongs to the ADVANCED CLASS.

Are they different? Yes they are different.
However, if you are basing your argumente on this statement of yours: "Are you saying that a vanguard has different skills than a trooper or a commando? That would lead me to believe that they were <GASP> DIFFERENT CLASSES, not the same class.", then let me pick that apart for you.
First of all, I'm not saying that a Vanguard has different skills than a Trooper or a Commando. What I am saying is that the Vanguard and the Commando have 22 skills that are EXACTLY THE SAME because they are both Troopers. They only differ in about 15 - 17 skills depending on the Skill Tree they are using.
Second of all, are you trying to state that just because some skills are different, that it make for a different class? If so then a Tactics Vanguard is a different Class from an Assault Vanguard? Is that what you are saying? (OR am I just twisting your words they way you enjoy doing?)

The point I was making is that the Advanced Classes share the same foundation. They are essentially the base class with a specialization that sets them apart from the other specialization in some way.

I'm not trying to convince you of that. It is a plain fact. You may try and deny it all you want; you may say that others are grabbing onto that as the basis for wanting to be able to change ACs; the fact of the matter is that at the end of the day, all the advanced classes are in essence just a specialization of the base class. Nothing more. Nothing less.

The problem is that those statements from DE remain the last word from the devs on AC's being different classes. I'm also noticing that those quotes do not have dates attached to them, so I wonder if they are in the actual chronological order in which those statements were made. It's very possible that the last statement from DE was the first one that you listed and that makes a HUGE difference. As has been noted by others, the devs can change their minds at any time. The latter statements from DE in your post could very well have been made early in the development, after which the devs changed their minds (views) and therefore issued the "final" statement, the one you listed first.

I'm not saying that this is what happened, but if those statements you list are not in the correct chronological order, it muddies the waters. Correct chronological order, on the other hand, leads to a clearer picture.

This is why I agree with you in that I wold like to see the devs should pop their heads into this thread and make a definitive statement on the AC's and whether or not they are classes or specs. I would also like to see a more definitive statement as to whether they are working on, or even still considering, allowing AC (class) changes or if they have decided to hold to the stance they took before launch and not allow AC (class) changing.

I can find out the chronilogical order if you like. I believe the statement from Zoeller is the most recent in that list.

I certainly hope they decided against AC change. If not, I hope they at least limit it's impact on the game if allowed.

I can find out the chronilogical order if you like. I believe the statement from Zoeller is the most recent in that list.

I certainly hope they decided against AC change. If not, I hope they at least limit it's impact on the game if allowed.

Again, if this is something the masses want I would not campaign against it. Majority rules.

A Navy seal, submariner and Navy pilot all share the same foundation. They are all Navy personnel and went through the same boot camp.

By your logic, that submariner would be able to hop in an F-14 tomorrow and go to TOP GUN, as submariner and pilot are only a specializations and NOT a jobs/classes unto themselves. But, wait...it doesn't work that way. Sure, that submariner can request to be a pilot, but he still needs to start at ground zero. He is not simply handed his pilot's wings just because he can throw a little money at the Department of the Navy. He has to EARN them.

Much like the players who wants to play a powertech after leveling a mercenary should level that powertech.

There is not even a clear majority in this thread.

That's you trying to spin a "loss" into a "tie."

By all means, prove my "loss".

Go back through the thread and count each individual poster on both sides, then post the results. .

You won't, though

Neither are you.

But I am not the one claiming a "clear majority", am I? Therefore, as I said, the onus is on you, not me.