. . . totally irrelevant to what I'm talking about.
So link some recent examples that we could take over to st or ukc and persuade the crowds there to revise their judgment of rc.
I can only think of two: the work done in the aliens meltdown thread (s). and maybe certain of the threads in the accidents forum, where heavy moderation seems really useful.
Are you kidding? I'm not familiar with UKC, but on supertopo there is zero interest in such stuff. Negative interest, actually - it gets ridiculed. Even when the people talking are gear engineers, mathematicians, and statisticians.
I can think of one such conversation there, when many of the participants who helped work up the testing and analysis behind the new John Long anchors book were trying to present some of their findings. Here such a thing might be greeted with too much attention by too many noobs, but there it was ridiculed, considered stupid, pointless, and uninteresting.
Any time another thread along those lines has started it's been shouted down quickly.
Calling attention to such threads here on rc.com would only be more proof of rc.com's idiocy.
As for recent examples - I haven't actually followed anything recently. But the Alien threads and the anchor thread were examples.
. The knob at it's very best and very worst at the same time.