Amended Site Rules And Science Category Introduction

[ABSpareEditor]

There was some commotion over the weekend in the "Science" category regarding misinformation and fact checking.

To cover any issues that may arise in the future, we have amended the Site Rules. We have also amended the introduction for the "Science" category.

We have added the following text to the "Science" category introduction:

"Whilst discussions and debates are encouraged, The AnswerBank reserves the right to remove answers that are misleading, e.g. by implying that a statement is a scientific theory or law when it is not, especially when such answers may impact personal health choices.

The AnswerBank makes no claim regarding the scientific accuracy of any post (question or answer) made by a member."

We have added the following text to the Site Rules:

"The AnswerBank also reserves the right to remove any false or misleading information, especially in the Law, Body & Soul and Science categories."

[pixie374]

Lies are perfectly acceptable, jno, apparently.
Spicerack... not any more, I guess...
Jim, apologies... I might very well be wrong... I was thinking of a typical male, and thought of you first...
I think, you know as well as I do, that you wildly fluctuate between science and belief, depending on what suits you at the time. That genuinely is just an observation, and is not supposed to be a go at you xx

[jno]

prof, this thread is the adjudication.

The Ed is in charge of the website. He is free to do as he pleases with it, and outraged members are free to leave or stay as they wish. (Flounce announce cards are available on request.)

I'm not sure everyone understands an owner's right to run his or her own business.

[jim360]

It's an observation I don't (entirely) agree with, but whatever. We've been there before.

Mainly hi again.

[pixie374]

Hi Jim :-) and respect to you. Don't get me wrong please, just my observations xx
Yes, we know, imo xx

[pixie374]

... jno...

[woofgang]

Well I have no problem with "My gaff my rules" but I will be very interested to see how this new rule is applied.

[ProfessorMaisie]

But it appears the Ed can be influenced, jno - even to the point of changing the rules of his fiefdom.

[jim360]

For what little it's worth, I'm sure I've benefitted from our discussions on at least one issue that's come up in this thread already.

[Ellipsis]

Certainly spices up the Science category ... I've hardly noticed it before.

[pixie374]

Whatever it is, I'm glad, Jim. Hope you are ok xx

[steg]

//But it appears the Ed can be influenced, jno - even to the point of changing the rules of his fiefdom.//

The perks of being the boss eh

[ProfessorMaisie]

Begs the question - 'who is the boss' in this instance?

[Togo]

//I'm not sure everyone understands an owner's right to run his or her own busines// sic

Unless you run a bakery in Northern Ireland?

[sanmac]

A "good" boss should not be so easily manipulated by just one person's opinion.

[anneasquith]

Interesting times? I think not.

[pixie374]

Togo, nobody is entitled to break the law, but this isn't that... it is just a new policy, which none of us are sure how far it will go xx

[Tilly2]

What a to-do!

'Now, what I want is Facts. Teach these boys and girls nothing but Facts. Facts alone are wanted in life. Plant nothing else, and root out everything else. You can only form the mind of reasoning animals upon Facts: nothing else will ever be of any service to them.'

Mr Gradgrind, Hard Times.

[douglas9401]

In short, the whole thing's fact, innit.

[Togo]

//Togo, nobody is entitled to break the law,//

I haven't advocated that they are Pixie. I have however wondered, out loud, whether some feel that they have their own "special" laws that are applied only when they "feel the need".

[pixie374]

The bakery that I think you were referring to, Togo, was acting illegally. I am sure AB are not doing that, but I hope and expect that the "facts only" rule is applied across the board, and not just in one section xx