Thanks, Hilico! I was starting to get my knickers in a twist, owing to an attitude that I assumed TC had in his original post: I got the impression that he did not consider all of the hours I spent offshore as "quality" flying. I would beg to differ. But you said it well, and said all that needs to be.
On the other hand...
I have 10,000+ hours. With that in mind, am I twice as good as a pilot with 5,000 hours? Um, probably not. Am I ten times better than a kid with 1,000 hours? Of course not. But I looked at that pic of the low-skid 206 about to land on the tiny little deck mounted on high-wires!, and I thought to myself, "Yeah, I could do that, no sweat." (Okay, maybe a little sweat, first time.)
I can successfully plan a flight. I can hold heading and altitude with the best of them. I can gauge wind on the water like you wouldn't believe. I can hold a stable hover over a platform of which I can only see a small piece through the chin-bubble or out my door. I can slingload. In fact, I can do a whole bunch of stuff well...because I continually honed my skills during my 5,000 hours of driving around offshore instead of just sitting there watching the water go by. "Quality" flying? I'd say so.
I would imagine that the high-time cropduster or powerline patroller could do the same. To assume that any type of flying involves more "quality" than another seems a trifle elitist to me.