But on the other hand...would it be safe to say we've all learned a bit from hanging around APUG? I certainly have---and some of it's led to GAS, for better or worse, but some of it has also led to "hey, I know how to make this photograph work!", to "I gotta get out and try that!", and to "Let's see what happens if I..."
I'm looking around the photos in my office, and of the ten that were actually my doing, six owe their existence to knowledge and/or GAS that came directly from APUG. This isn't true of everyone, but I think I do some of my best work while exploring tools; maybe thinking about the new toy gets my intellect out of the way and lets my right brain see the image without interference, or something like that, but whatever it is, it seems to work. So I'm not really inclined to write off GAS as intrinsically the enemy of productive photography.
Maybe photographers can be divided into "Miles" and "Coltrane" camps; one group tends to work narrow-and-deep, taking a specific set of tools and working them for everything they're worth, concentrating on well-defined ideas and meticulously matching the process to the idea, where the other group takes a sprawling, all-inclusive approach that embraces an enormous disorderly territory and spins off ideas in a vast carnival of productive chaos.