thank you for that link from the Webmaster.
He/she is probably right in their overall assessment: it could be difficult to remain impartial if a poster challenges what is referred to as a moderators "belief system", but I would also like to add the following to their assessment.............
Fasting, and the knowledge acquired from its study, is not really a "belief system" in the way that people believe in a "God" or have "faith" that one exists, as purported by the Worlds religions, or based on opinions, and where these sometimes worthy ideals cannot be substantiated or proved one way or the other.
The benefits of the fasting process however; its symptoms of elimination; and its effects upon the human body that conform to the Laws of our being, have been recorded/tested, and laid down as physiological facts with provable benefits that do not require a persons "faith" or a "belief system" for it to function.
Although I do agree with the thrust of the Webmasters post I would think it is a prerequisite for at least ONE moderator of a forum to have a high degree of knowledge of their subject to be able to "oversee" all posts for their accuracy/inaccuracies, and where they would then possibly need to intervene (in one way shape or another) to dispel or endorse these for the potential benefit/harm to all members.
A member-only would not be in a position to do this except to counter a post with another if they found this to be the case, and which is the mistake I made in replying to a post to counter a gross inaccuracy and which was potentially harmful/damaging to the forum members as a whole, rather than opting for other discreet choices available to a moderator.
You are quite right as well: this has been a learning curve for me and where I do not intend to repeat the same mistake.
I shall think twice about any action I take in the future, (if any) and which has usually been to award an "R" status and where I hope the other Mod's on the forum opt-in before I do, if they see the need to do so.