This post perpetuates two myths.
First myth that there isn't room on this forum to discuss Krauss
Who ever said that - you can start a thread on him any time you want. The point is that if most here aren't interested the thread isn't going to be very active. You can start any topic you like, but you cannot force people to be interested or engaged.
Second myth that discussing one of the most prominent and self declared atheist is somehow not a valid topic.
It is no more nor less valid than discussing any other prominent atheist (or theist for that matter). I think your problem is that most people here have probably either never heard of him before and/or have little knowledge or interest in his views on religion. So it may be valid to discuss him but unless there is sufficient interest in him or his views that thread isn't going to get much traction.
The crisis in conduct in academic science, reported recently at length in scientific American is also here imho reduced to Krauss. If the Krauss affair is thus diminished then the conduct issue in science is diminished subsequently.
Now you are being deeply disingenuous. Your reasons for raising the issues of Krause are entirely because he is an atheist, not because he is a scientist. There are plenty of other examples of issues within the scientific and broader academic research communities that don't involve 'prominent antitheist' (as you describe Krause) - why have you never raised these Vlad.
If you want to raise systemic and institutional issues within academic science and research - happy to do so - I suspect I have a darned sight better insight than you. I do not dismiss them - indeed part of my professional duties involve dealing with such issues and helping to develop a more appropriate culture within the academic community. It is you who diminish the issues by linking them to the religious faith or lack thereof of an individual alleged perpetrator.
