>Therefore, it would be interesting to hear what others have to recommend. If by 'others', you mean people who might chime into this post, I can be fairly cert

>Therefore, it would be interesting to hear what others have to recommend. If by 'others', you mean people who might chime into this post, I can be fairly certain that not many are going to respond. ( I will be repeating this post over several months, even one person vaguely interested in about 10 repeat postings will be an excellent hit rate). Personally my suggestion would be to go with some ordinary forum and then switch to a more secure one once the topic is deemed too sensitive. >These days, the tragedy is that so few are taught argument and formal logic when they're young enough so as to get into the habit of regularly questioning and testing their beliefs with others and against external evidence. For most part you cannot teach ( most) people to be questioning of their beliefs for the very simple reason that they cannot take on that additional cognitive load. It's is significantly easier for most people to navigate life with a set predetermined of beliefs on autopilot >I overly question my stance or beliefs on too many things and that too can be a hindrance. Precisely. If you a guy with an above average IQ has a problem ( Yes I read through your past posts ), what can you expect ordinary people to do? > It's why discussions groups should be as wide and flexible as is practicable but still be kept strictly on topic. That's why a good but fair moderator is needed. My guess is that with most 'well' functioning groups even a moderator is not often needed. What I have noticed that when there are calls for banning a person, the person is usually way off topic/rambling incoherently and is a prolific poster. Of course the people who oppose the ban are very pro-freedom of speech and this is where the contention comes in. But there are ways of solving it. ( It's going to be too long a post if I attempt to fully address it) >What I've said above is somewhat clumsy, which is what happens when one tries to oversimplify an argument, nevertheless you'll get the gist of what I mean. I do. You can generally be assured that I will not jump to conclusions, I will explicitly ask if in doubt. My larger point though is that if you find yourself worrying about being mis-interpreted then, if possible you should avoid that individual altogether, or just take a stand of not speaking up. ( like I often do at my work place). Anyway I read through some of your past posts and I can say with a fair degree of certainty that I need not even ask you about your beliefs, you appear well above the threshold of dealability as far as I'm concerned. Not saying that there won't be minor differences, but I don't see fundamental differences either. ( I was pleasantly suprised that you knew about thalidomide, not may on HN would even have heard of it)