In a PM Diebert wrote:A request like that needs some substantiation. Keep it impersonal if you like but that will be hard since you have personal reasons to continue posting on this forum with three or four active members left who are not in the same boat as you and never will be.
It is you who are having difficulty keeping this impersonal. You have made it nearly completely personal. I am resisting this over-personalisation and request that you de-personalise it by ceasing to lock threads, delete posts and relegate threads to a zone where they die and are intended to die. It doesn't really need 'further substantiation'. The request, and the reasoning underpinning it, stands on its own. It is completely reasonable.
Everyone, by definition, insofar as they are persons, has 'personal reasons' for writing on this forum or any forum. It is impossible to write without personality or from the perspective of a non-person. It is not your role, and should not be your role, to stand over my reasons, or my person. Additionally, though there are 4-5 active persons writing here, there are likely 10 and possibly more who read. I know of 3 persons who read but don't post.
To imply that to write here you have to 'be in the same boat', is nonsensical. The notion behind a forum, just as it is behind the concept of philosophy in an open society, is to be exposed to differing viewpoints, not to shut them out.
It's very hard for me to understand why you'd be concerned with it. Because I can hardly believe that I'm here myself still typing away. You have a family, a business, a beautiful country to live in, so many books and possibility for high level discussions. But you sit here at the drain stop trying to ... what?
From all the destructive trends in the worlds, you are "concerned" about mine. On the remains of a forum which I nurture until Kevin pulls the plug. Like a museum on extended lifetime through a kind subsidy.
So, you'll need to make me understand without repeating what you wrote before. Because that doesn't sound like a human being. On a personal note (skip if you don't like it) do you even realize how unreal you come across on the fora and why people react on you like you do? Not just because they disagree but because you sound like a dork. But I have not problem with it though.
None of this is at all relevant, or if it is relevant it is relevant to a personal conversation. Many things are 'hard for you to understand' but this has no bearing on the simple and direct request I am making.
What I am 'doing' is expressed, clearly and succinctly, in the posts themselves. I constantly explain and reexplain my purposes, more than anyone else I think. It requires no further elucidation.
Obviously, you personalise this when you refer to the forum as 'yours'. I think the only reason Kevin would pull the plug is that he doen't want to pay the fees. I have contributed hundreds of dollars so far and so, ipso facto, I am not one interested in seeing it go down the drain.
You want on the one hand a complete 'impersonalisation', and on the other a 'human being'. My communication, just above where I explain my view, is a reduced communication, reduced to obvious fact.
You do very much 'have problems' with what I write, how I 'sound' and to all appearances many different things.
Your personal assessment as to how my tone is received is also not relevant. For example, the 'tone' of posters like Leyla and Jupi is not much to my 'liking' except I cannot conceive of eliminating them.
The forum is not supposed to be a stage for never-ending personal exposition and free-range rambling, for an audience of what is it, three, four people, and yet laced with bitter criticism of the very platform it's using and the general philosophy being discussed.
I have said numerous times what aspect of the forum I admire, and the Founders of it. It is testament in a very real sense to the effect of their initiation of the forum that it calls forth, still, the response it does. My contributions are not destructive to the focus over-all if this is understood, and I explain myself at every juncture.
Your personal assessments ("Dear Gustav") is not of relevance in this context, nor to me. What impresses is that you think it should be and that, for you, it is. I ask that this stop.
The psychological analysis provokes only contemptuous dismissal. But this does not mean that I dismiss a psychological aspect to our (the forum's) argumentation.
Extending this psychological analysis (psuedo-analysis really) to larger and philosophical - or spiritual - questions and assuming that you moderate these, is exactly where
your problem is found. Keep your problem: write about it, express it, discuss it. But don't allow your issue to cloud moderator's decisions.
Please: unlock the thread (locked threads are death in numerous ways to open communication. It 'chills' dramatically communication). Restore this thread to its proper place and stop intervening in it, and by your moderator's presence, chilling it. And refrain from deleting posts arbitrarily.
These are reasoned and reasonable requests.
Having a moderator is a good thing. Incorrect or over-the-bounds moderation is a very bad thing.