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

Lord, I'd never be that precious, this is a internet discussion forum covering a fringe topic, that tends to be very anti-science, with 100 members. I think the community should be grateful for any interviews that members spend their own time organising and writing up. What I'm hearing is homophobia by a handful of members... that's the unstated or hidden reason why this matter has been brought up as far as I can see. If Vortex's interview was about homeopathy etc... I doubt I'd have heard a peep.

So if I did an interview about my cats that rest of the group should appreciate it?

Listen to yourself. You make no sense.

I  can see how it would be interesting if it was an interview in a New Journalism sense. If there was a lot of context surrounding the questions and answers. I guess context is going to have a bias. 

Let me ask you this:

Do you think an interview with a flat earth scientist would be appropriate? 

Do you listen to Highside Chats by any chance? Greg is a really nice guy. And in one of his shows lately, maybe the interview with Gordon White, he was talking about how when he started he was the guy who presented the fringiest conspiracy stuff anywhere. Now there is some stuff out there that even makes Greg blush. I don't think that PQ needs to entertain every single fringe theory just because it is fringe. We should be evaluating the idea before-hand, using some expertise, to determine if the theory has ANY merit.

What is a flat earth theory? Hiv/aids?

Once again. I have to plead ignorance. I thought this guy's claim was that HIV has nothing at all to do with AIDS. That seems to fly in the face of the science of probably tens of thousands of people working in the field. Hell, they have come up with a vaccine haven't they? I think they have a pretty good understanding of HIV/AIDS at this point. Is there much mystery there?

It isn't like only a handful of people worked on HIV/AIDS. The effort was massive.

Another daft comment. We're discussing why hiv/aids or homosexuality subjects should be singled out for special prohibition on psiencequest...

whatever...

Why not try giving me a reason why discussion of hiv/aids on this forum should not be allowed? Damaging is not a reason.

Because unfounded conspiracy theories aren't things people came here to discuss, or like Ninshub said, why people left Skeptiko. There are hidden subforums for that stuff. 

Damaging is a reason, Max. Again, because you deem it not so doesn't make it creed. I personally am not persuaded by what I've read about AIDs/HIV issues, but I think those kind of conspiracies are damaging to a fledgling forum that is trying to garner credibility, like someone else said. That's a good reason. The people who think the arguments are founded in nonsense and make the forum look like a bunch of crackpots who are willing to entertain any anti-science conspiracy are probably not comfortable with those implications. I don't think we're a conspiracy community that is willing to challenge science and the status quo on every single issue.

I get what you're saying about why it might be allowed, like I said originally. But to make the irrational and incredible leap you did to suddenly accuse people of homophobia on that basis is disingenuous and pretty nonsensical in my opinion.

I'm not interested in 70% of the stuff on psiencequest. The issue isn't about merit, it about why hiv/aids is getting singled out for prohibition on psiencequest. And nobody seems able to tell me why?

This is nonsense. You're just not accepting the reasons people are listing. That's your own issue. Homophobia is such a ridiculous accusation to level I'm surprised you're still pursuing it.