rec.climbing - if you wanna know what's really going on in the climbing world, there are still few substitutes ...
9.2.00 - retraction and apology:
The rec.climbing posting that previously appeared here at huecotanks.com regarding a mythical incident involving the daughter of a former Hueco park manager was completely FALSE. This conclusion is based on new information from a reliable source. Apparently, the tale is one of those pervasive urban legends that circulated around until it was perceived to be true.
We ought not have reproduced it in a singular form, presented it out of context, featured it so prominently and ought not posted it without a better disclaimer - something similar to what you are reading now.
The posting in question was part of a long exchange between many people that occurred on rec.climbing over a period of several weeks.
Undoubtedly, much of what is said on rec.climbing is true, but there is a percentage that is total BS. Ought we appoint ourselves as censors and arbiters of truth for every rec.climbing posting? Since one cannot be 100% certain of the validity of the majority of postings, ought nothing be mirrored? And if we reproduce nothing, what will stop people from going to other websites where the archives are available?
In many ways, a website's responsibility in this matter is similar to that of a newspaper. Suppose a newspaper prints a controversial quote from someone, and further assume that the quote is false. Is the newspaper committing libel? How about the paperboy? Remember, the newspaper is not asserting that the quote is true or false, they are just reporting what was said.
For those of you who are curious about all this, and perhaps never read the original posting, we suggest you go to a usenet archive site and search for all postings with the keywords "hueco" and "Russ", between 1996 and 1998.