You assume a lot about what "we" think and do.

The best posts here, IMO, are those that demonstrate critical thinking about a project rather than simply laugh about it.

For example, I cannot see why anyone would think that last link is "honorable". It is a place that charges money for climbing vacations and suggests that their clients start crowd-funding (cyber-begging) for money. A portion of their fee goes towards a charity, but it should be obvious to anyone skimming that page the the impact on charity is minimal at best. It also clearly states that crowd-funding is to pay for the trip and not for charity. Since you use that site as an example, I'm not so sure you spotted any of that.

Some people might think that site is "honorable" and has to do with charity - perhaps the same people that send gift cards to tax-agents that cold-call them or buy into the Skarp or even fight for them in the comments.

I can't speak for everyone, but even though I get a few laughs, I'm really here for the critical thinking that does along with spotting and picking apart a shitty project - or even sometimes pointing out how and why a project doesn't belong here. In fact, I feel cyber-begging for vacation can easily hit rule 4.