Recently it was discovered that GSI - a very simplified way to characterize rock masses - was appearing 16 times in the H-B equation for 'c' for rock masses, and 12 times in the H-B equation for 'phi' for rock masses, and ten times in the H-B equation for sigma cm for the assumed compressive strength of rock masses. This is due to the three supporting equations that also include a poorly defined disturbance factor D that also appears multiple times. Yet it appears that a very large number of RG authors and rock engineering designers are utilizing GSI and H-B and commercial finite element or finite difference codes from our two principal numerical code providers, both of them from the USA. The fact that the Hoek-Brown equations for rock masses are actually derived from their genuinely empirical criterion for intact rock seems not to be of concern, despite very different rock joint and fault influence on rock mass behaviour around tunnels and beneath rock slopes. Many are publishing figures with 'circular' or spoon shaped slope failures, even though such are seldom experienced unless the rock is very weak or disintegrated. Why have so many deviated from reality almost mimicking 60 years old assumptions?