Maybe I’m too hopeful, but this amusing teapot tempest has dragged on so long that I’m starting to suspect the whole thing is some elaborate brick joke.
I don’t have a dog in this fight, but it disturbs me that rigid rules seem to take precedence over “fighting ignorance,” and that is not a good thing on this particular board.
Apparently, even if something is well-known to be fraudulent, and links can be provided that substantiate that, we can’t tell anyone because it might be interpreted as a “religious jab.”
So religion – and frauds – once again, get a free ride. :dubious:
I guess fighting ignorance is not the holy grail we once hoped for.
I surprisingly agreee with the OP. I don’t think giving carte blanche to the perpetually butthurt is a worthwhile endeavor. Legislating language is short-sighted.
Musicat, no one has said you can’t prove something is fraudulent. No one is protecting frauds. What they said was to have the conversation in the appropriate thread in the appropriate forum, just like every other topic on this board.
Oh come on.
I’m on record about hating it when mods make up rules and apply them retroactively, but the “no religious jabs” thing is so obviously included in the primary GQ rule “No politics, dammit” that it’s stunning that you wouldn’t get it.
You should be really, really glad that it’s Colibri and not Manhattan who’s modding. 
It seems like the rules of “no religious jabs” take precedence over exposure of fraud on one or more forums. If so, I’m not sure that is in keeping with our reason for existence.
Ignoring the purposes of the various forums is your reason for existence?
I always thought SDMB was a higher cause than a sub-forum. guess I was wrong.
Gosh, that does sound dramatic, doesn’t it?
You are correct, Sir!
- No.
- It’s a description, not a name. Its name is Rule 2 of the General Questions Rules. I call it number two for short.
That’s a great suggestion. Thanks! I wrote a sticky about that in 2008. It’s a rule that’s specific to the General Questions forum, so that’s where the sticky is. Factual Questions Rules & FAQs - Factual Questions - Straight Dope Message Board
I dunno, but let me personally assure you that there was no moderator conspiracy to conceal the rule’s desciption from you.
Sorry, this is just nonsense. This is just an issue of which forum, and which thread, that particular discussion goes in. I have said repeatedly that anyone who wishes to discuss the issue of fraud in relation to Scientology may do so in Great Debates. If the fraud had been the main issue of the original thread, I would simply have moved it to GD. But it was a side issue, and one that was not appropriate for continued discussion in GQ.
Just because you scoff doesn’t make it less true. We mock what we are to become.
Seriously, I don’t believe that a minor rule in a sub-forum should take precedence over our main target, that’s all. Following a protocol shouldn’t override truth, education or the dissemination of either, and neither shouldn’t be brushed aside because it’s in the “wrong” forum. There is no right forum for misinformation.
Whatever. That’s just not the way this board is organized.
How are you not getting this? Nobody is “overriding truth”. They are just requesting that truths be placed in the appropriate forum by type.
I can’t believe anyone mods this place for free.
I agree with the OP, it’s a conspiracy and I can show you some evidence:
Notice no parenthesis leaving the order of operator precedence a little ambiguous.
Do we apply the OR first or the AND. Normally it would be the AND, but those commas were clearly thrown in for the sole purpose of giving the mods flexibility in applying the rule. Very clever.
Well, that…and Colibri is a cylon. Marley is a V. Gfactor is just an old school Grey, Czarcasm works for the Shadows, Samclem has a Keeper symbiote controlling his actions, and Giraffe…well, the dude has a 14 inch prehensile tongue. 'Nuff said.
Me either, some days. 
And Twickster is one of those Leather Goddess of Phobos babes…
I wouldn’t do it for free!
They gave me a coffee mug.