Paul, not bad for "a snap"! I've always considered myself to be more of a snap shooter than I will publicly admit (oops). I also consider myself to a skeptic, not in the sense of dissing something if I don't own it or dissing it if I haven't figured it out yet. Let's face it there are plenty of those over at . . . well, you know where.
I like to be skeptical in the scientific sense of questioning assumptions and forcing them to be proved. Here is my tact on the Mark III. There is no doubt that it is a better camera than the N just as the N was, by a smaller increment, a better camera than the 1D2. I define "better" as being better for what I do which is mainly sports to be printed at a maximum of 8x10.
I've seen a lot of great Mark III work by people I respect especially Arthur Morris. My N has upwards of 92,000 shots on it so replacing it with a Mark III would be a $2500 deal at best. I've been looking around for Mark III shots that are significantly or even noticeably better than the 1D2N could have taken. So far I haven't seen but a very few. Of course if I was replacing a 10D or 20D there would be a ton of them.
My position is that if my N blows up or is stolen of course I'll by a Mark III at the currently too high price rather than a close out or slightly used N. For now I just don't see the "got to have one" in the Mark III.