Ok I've obviously missed something.

Who is being condescending and thinking they are above others in the hobby?

How are the so called "highland" and "lowland" forms significantly different in size? Of all the ones I've seen and kept of both forms I haven't noticed one being any larger than the other. You will get size variations within both forms (and every other species).
Colouration and pattern are 2 different things altogether. Colouration is not used as a taxonomic tool as it varies through the moult cycle and changes with humidity levels plus when you drop a spider in alcohol it will turn brown over time anyway. Pattern stays the same regardless of these factors and so is considered a stable character. In the case of the subfusca forms, they both have the same pattern but one is darker which obscures some of the pattern. Look closely though and it is still there.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion. This means people will sometimes agree with you and sometimes they won't. When someone doesn't agree with you there is no point getting butt hurt about it and complaining about high and mighty attitudes. Present a better argument. This leads to discussions and an active forum.

Remember its all a bit of fun. If someone on a forum doesn't agree with you don't take it personally, it doesn't mean they have anything against you.

@thekeeperza
My post about the ban comes with a long history, I agree with you other than that.

@duke I have seen quite a considerable difference in size between the two 'forms' among other quite consistent differences which I'm not going to get into now, let's wait and see I guess. I have now photographed quite a few different specimens and I am starting to notice some specific differences for myself.

Tackling both topics, here's what I think.

Long ago we were hairy and rude and smelled funny and beat each other over the head with clubs for smallish things like dibs on the least damp spot in the cave. We didn't care if someone giggled at farts at funerals because we didn't have funerals.

Then we got clever and spoke in British accents and said things like: "What ho man. That sumptuously roast fowl which thy are partaking of. we should conjur' up a name for the beast and figure how it relates to other fowl and slithery snakes and fluffy hamsters and dragons and try to make sense of it all and your giggling at my mother's farts at the funeral offended me. We shall make a duel. Now be a good lad and pass me that drumstick."

So we set forth over the planet and collected, classified, named and arranged and interacting with fellow humans was a different affair and we spoke with German accents because of ze efficientcy, ja! and if you picked a fight with someone in the public forum (read platz) that is exactly what you got or at least some squishy teutonic yam lobbed at your head by someone's hairy teutonic grandmother who may or may not fart at funerals. This is irrelevant.

Then we got even more clever and traveled even further and found more and reclassified and rewrote and revised the heck out of the original descriptions. Papers weren't shot down so much because someone giggled at some higher up's mothers farts at that funeral but based on fact and evidence.* We made machines that can look at differences between things on a molecular level and if you had said "DNA" out loud to Pocock in 1895 when he described P subfusca he would have thought you were asking "Do you know" in very bad Welch (Say DNA out loud. You'll get it. Eventually.)
We also invented this thing, this way of giving everybody a voice. A global forum where everybody participates and the podium has been shared between everybody, but everybody is behind their curtain so you don't know if, when someone says something they are smiling or sadistically smirking or serious or silly and saying stuff for the heck of it and nobody knew who the hell fuggin farted.

The solution is this:
If P subfusca isn't two different species because speciation had not advanced far enough for them to be classified as such under the current rules of taxonomy and at the time they were described, or the taxonomists simply haven't gotten round to it yet like Lampropelma violaceopes being Cyriopagopus,is ok. They might be. They might never be. If we had gotten clever a little while later (geologically speaking) they might have sufficiently evolved in separate directions to be classified as such. In terms of the hobby, only buy, breed and keep them separately. If you like.
If you take to your global curtained off podium, respect that the other person may not see things the same way as you do and that it is up to the dude that invents, builds, runs and pays for the hosting to set the tone and that so much freedom runs on mutual respect and tolerance.

Otherwise we'd all just be giggling at farts during funerals, and that they tell me is just wrong. The whole funeral suffers. And it leaves a stink big enough for a lot of people not wanting to participate so much anymore.

Oh, and boobies : )

*Search for disagreements and conflicts of ego between your well know famous early scientists. Also google for the first images of giraffe and rhino and other exotic animals that people submitted to the Royal Societies.

So boobies are still ok?

For me it's as simple as having fun on the forum. We are all here to learn and discuss. If you take it too serious then its not fun anymore.

But most importantly boobies are in fact great. :happy:

The Magnificent Duke wrote: So boobies are still ok?

For sure. But not ever moobs. No matter how good they might look. :sick: