So how about linking to MP? Or SummitPost? Or the Tundra forum? Or some fly fishing forum? Or a cyclists forum? Or Fine Homebuilding's forum?
Or any other website that might have information that is pertinent to the discussion?
If one of the goals of this forum is to become a deeper source of information for climbers, having a blanket policy of not allowing (or desiring) links to SuperTopo just doesn't make any sense. If so, then why limit that policy to ST? Why not links to ANY website?
Discussions of a topic at hand usually require corroboration of one's comments...and that means linking to an outside source. Sure, some of those source websites can be pretty shady (and maybe RPU needs to create some coding to block the really dangerous ones), but that shady-ness is part and parcel of the inter-webz. Caveat browser.
Or is this anti-linking policy specific to ST, only? If so...gotta get past that, man. Let ST be what it was (emphasis on was), and RPU will gain it's own identity that will (hopefully) supersede ST over time.
"Management here does not appreciate the links to ST."
Really? Musta missed that. Toby, please reiterate the objection you might have (or direct me to a previous statement) to anyone linking to ST.
"I don't either & and I am not management."
Man, there's still a lot of ST butthurt out there. Assuming there isn't a legal or very serious practical reason for not linking to ST, why the hell shouldn't anyone link back to ST if it supports an important point or post they are making?
ST was (is!) a climbing resource. If there is a discussion going on here that can be bolstered or deepened by pointing to another resource, then absolutely do so...especially ST.
Barry's Resoles (in Auberry) did a great job on my Moccasyms. Only downside was the wait time- he tends to be pretty backed up, but he was forthcoming about that at the start, and they were completed pretty much when he said they'd be done.
barrydchambers (at) geeeeee mail
Russ, I have no idea what 'other site' Happi is referring to, though the choices are fairly obvious. And I can make an educated guess as to where those words are coming from, but I really don't care.
Though there was a particularly embarrassing shit-stirring episode at ST, I may have been on these Titanics, but I sincerely doubt I was the iceberg that they hit.
What I am curious about are Toby's thoughts on managing a new forum like this one, from what he's observed in all of the forums that are currently operating.
Toby, have you been following what has been happening over at TacoSalad? Traffic died off abruptly last week, and from what little one can glean from Happi's posts, it seems related to someone taking issue with axing at least two prolific posters. Apparently, someone is making a lot of noise about this on another site, using words like 'slander' and 'libel'.
Who knows what the true source is of all this doo-dah, but it doesn't seem even the slightest bit surprising given the doo-dah like this that occurred at ST for many years. I have a lot of empathy for Happi's genuine efforts to establish an alternative to ST that operated with a little less drama.
So what do you think about all of this? What is your view of how much moderation you are willing to do here at Redpoint, and what is your tolerance level for such things?
Biologically...for the sake of the species...it is in our best interest to place our own interests first. I believe this tendency originates with very basic survival instincts, and has extended into our higher brain functions as humans have evolved.
At this point in our evolution, humans do make decisions that are in someone else's primary interest, however it is very selective, and evidence of a higher functioning brain. Virtually any other species on the planet will take actions that allow it to survive and thrive to allow the species to proliferate.
Indeed, the two party system is a huge part of the problem. Although, if there were 3, or 4, or 8 different parties, no doubt we would still be making a lesser-evil choice. The current two party system is so overly-simplified, it results in a binary choice where the candidate of the Party that most closely reflects one's beliefs and values becomes your only real choice, esp. when the other Party's choice is soooooo undesirable (which was easily said about Trump or Clinton in 2016).
I'd like to see a major shift in the political system like that, but I'm not going to hold my breath.