[denny]

Since I FWH about 80% of my batches, I obviously think it does.

If I remember correctly from your results on the FWH experiment, the feedback was kind of all over the map, with no clear preference or effect on the finished beer. I don't have your slides from the NHC presentation on my work computer, so what convinced you that it made a difference?

You're right, the results were mixed.  (http://www.ahaconference.org/wp-content/uploads/presentations/2008/DennyConn.pdf...start on pg. 29).  What convinced me was my own experience and tasting.

[tomsawyer]

I've been a scum skimmer for a long time.  I've noticed the scum tends to wind up as a ring on the side of the kettle moreso than falling back into the wort.

[garc_mall]

Skimmer here. I don't skim every time, and I don't particularly care, but some beers (I haven't determined a specific difference) have a lot of foam, and if there is too much, it makes it more easy for a boil over. If it looks like there is a lot of foam, and I am worried about a boil over, I skim until I get a bit of a break in the foam for all the steam to escape. Either way, I haven't noticed much of a difference at any step along the way.

[The Professor]

I used to skim until I started using FWH regularly.  That makes it hard to skim!  In terms of beer quality, I didn't find a difference.

I agree...taste wise, in the finished beer I found no difference at all between skimming and not skimming. 
The non-skimmed actually seemed to have a rockier and longer lasting head on pouring the finished beer...but then again it was not a scientific, controlled comparison (ie., I only compared skimming/not skimming between similar but not identical recipes).

I basically don't bother with skimming now.  One less thing to concern myself with and my beer still turns out bright and clear.

[gmac]

Just to be clear, I've never skimmed before but this time it seemed thicker and darker. My sparge was quite cloudy so I wondered if more starch meant more scum. I don't plan on being a skimmer.