Should we permit interviews on non-core subjects, esp AIDS/HIV?

I always think people mean they are just going to withdraw from the thread, not the whole forum. But I've been mistaken on that in the past.

Well for the avoidance of doubt I hope Chris doesn't leave the forum. OTOH, as far as the thread is concerned: it's a wise person who knows he's wasting his time on a particular discussion and decides it's not worth the effort.

I think the question about whether HB should be interviewed about different subjects other than his HIV work and whether that is appropriate BASED on his controversial HIV work is different enough to merit it's own thread. 

Because that is a much larger question. Many of the people who might be interviewed here may be considered controversial for one reason or another. What would be the criteria by which someone was deemed unacceptable to be interviewed based on some past actions or research?

[Laird]

I think you're right, Chuck: the consensus of this thread is that non-core subject matter not be allowed in interviews in the main forum interview space. The next question is whether and to what extent a potential interviewee's "controversial public image" should affect whether we interview them.

Why don't you start that thread and then link to it from this thread?

I love Chris and his work here. And he is not the only person who has said this by a long shot. But it fairly common for people to say, if the forum does 'X' then I don't want to be a part of it any longer. And because we saw so many people drop off of skeptiko over the years as the focus (and I would say quality) of the discussion changed, then panties start bunching and discussions start heating up.

[NONE OF THE BELOW HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH CHRIS. THE FOLLOWING IS 100% USER AGNOSTIC.]

That's probably not a tenable long term strategy for shaping the forum or setting rules or practices. PQ won't be able to please all the people all of the time. When you pick a direction based on the response of one user, you may lose another.

I understand there are gray areas and that the point isn't cut and dried. But I cringe a little any time I see someone post "Well if we allow that, then I don't want to be associated with PQ any more."

How does the intersection of science and spirituality relate to HIV?

It doesn't.  What relates, in my mind, is the industry of science itself.

The interview would be on his general position concerning science, not on his HIV-AIDS positions. They may be mentioned by him as an example, of course, but they definitely will not be central concern.

This is why I am interested in the interview and feel it is absolutely relevant.  That is unless we wish to remove any discussion of science and just talk about psi from a non-scientific perspective.  (Which would prompt me to exit stage left in a hurry.)

So why not ask Vortex to conduct the interview with the HIV/AIDS subject being off limits?

Chuck also brings up a very good point: There is no way to underwrite every single interviewee to ensure some aspect of their persona isn't offense to some member of the community.  I would hope the quality of content here would be judged in aggregate.  If a potential new member wishes to single out one offensive topic as a reason to not join.... I'd say we're better off not having them.

I am in favor of free speech.

[Laird]

I am in favor of free speech.

I don't think anybody's saying Henry Bauer ought not to be free to speak his mind on HIV/AIDS on his own platforms, the consensus is just that this forum will not be one of those platforms (it is not within the remit of our primary goal of the discussion of psi/paranormal topics, and especially the scientific research into those).

So why not ask Vortex to conduct the interview with the HIV/AIDS subject being off limits?

Chuck also brings up a very good point: There is no way to underwrite every single interviewee to ensure some aspect of their persona isn't offense to some member of the community.  I would hope the quality of content here would be judged in aggregate.  If a potential new member wishes to single out one offensive topic as a reason to not join.... I'd say we're better off not having them.

HIV/Aids denial is a very serious thing - and note how people were fine with the previous interviewees. And who are you to judge whether we're better off or not with/without certain members?