CathInfo.com

No, these two positions are completely different.  That's why Msgr. Fenton spilled so much ink contrasting the positions and then siding in favor of the "non-members" can be within the Church position.

Imperfect membership is not the same as membership in voto even.  Former camp believe that one actually obtains membership (partially) and it's by virtue of this partial membership (actually achieved, not merely in desire) that they are within the Church and saved.  I prefer this explanation to the in voto school or the position held by Fenton.

But we needn't argue too much about this ... since this dispute is among those who believe that people can be saved by desiring Baptism.

Problem is that you keep putting this distinction out there as a quasi-proof for Baptism of Desire and Salvation by Desire.  But it's not really proof, since this particular premise is disputed.  You just keep gratuitously saying that non-members can be saved.  I on the other hand simply point out that this is an opinion (disputed by many serious approved theologians) and so it doesn't suffice as probative in your logical framework.

Is an "imperfect" "member" saved "imperfectly"?  

It is not about people who believe people can be saved by desiring Baptism.  It is about believing that people can be saved apart from water when baptism is impossible.  Let us discuss the issue instead of putting words in each others mouth shall we?  

You need to substantiate what you teach above as I do.  Being within the Church is being within the Church.  Being a member of the Church is being a member of the Church.  Thus the two different words with two different meanings.

Again, you continue to gratuitously assert this ... as if it were proof for your distinction.  What we're saying is that this is a false distinction, that there's no such thing as being within the Church while not being a member.  This is precisely the "undigested hamburger" soteriology that I reject out of hand as preposterious ... because it leads to a view of the Church where the body and soul are not co-extensive.

But you just keep repeating this ad nauseam as if it were fact, and then use this distinction to prove that non-members of the Church can be saved (because they're "within" the Church).  In fact, you make this up precisely in order to say that you do not reject the dogma that there's no salvation except "within" the Church by saying that non-members can be "within" it.  But it's a totally circular argument based on your premise that the unbaptized can be saved.  But even with the BoDer camp, not all people say that non-members can be saved; some say that these peoples ARE members, either in voto or "imperfectly".

I side with the Fathers, Saints, Doctors, Trent, Popes, and yes the authorized theologians ...

Not this crap again.  On the points where you agree with said sources (although I dispute that some of these are pro BoD), I have no quarrel with you.  I quarrel with you precisely on the points where you don't agree with these same authorities.  None of these endorsed your Pelagianism or your heretical Sacramental theology.