My main point of past contention on this issue lay with the opposition to merely referring to the hive, as opposed to linking directly, which I agree was generally not required. But for all intents and purposes I simply found ways around this referring rule.
In Aus Drug Discussion, in somewhat cryptic fashion, I frequently referred to the hive in my posts, especially if I was acknowledging the source of a particular piece of info. Of course what often followed were PM's or emails asking for details of the site & the URL. I don't ever recall an instance where I refused such requests, which over the course of several years amounted to many.
What I always emphasized however, was the unforgiving nature of the place, and always advised that thorough observation should precede any posting.
At one point, I believe the knowledge gained from the hive by some Bluelighters was in part instrumental in lifting the quality of post in Aus DD. I'm not saying it made drug chemists out of anyone. Quite the contrary in most cases I'm sure. What it seemed to do though, is that from a HR perspective, we suddenly had people interested in impurities, and thinking more about the substances they had previously consumed and taken for granted.
So did this impact negatively on the hive? I can't say for sure there weren't silly questions or assumptions, but from this end of things, all in all I think it opened up a whole new world for many, and for some - evident in their BL posts from that point on - it definitely stirred up an interest in Chemistry.
While I understood the obvious reasons for not associating Bluelight with drug manufacturing discussions, I could never understand - if this was in a HR context - why some people insisted on a similar ban on linking to Rhodium. This was and still is a ridiculous across the board rule. If it were ever truly enforced, I'd be hosting everything I needed from Rhodium elsewhere. Either that or take up knitting
