Is the Spirituality Forum actually any good?

Benjamin Long said:Though it pains me to admit it, I find myself in general agreement with Donna and Enchantress this time around. ☕
Furthermore, I believe it would be highly beneficial for Philosophy if Spirituality were integrated into its ranks. Such a move would effectively break the monotony of those limited, overly simplistic approaches—specifically those leaning too heavily on aesthetic "sublime" concepts—and disrupt the current clan-like mentalities.

@ volver, who exactly do you consider to be the "landlord" over at Philosophy?

I was actually using a metaphor there (referring to the philosophy subforum being the home base). My point was really just that when everyone was scrambling to find the perfect setup for spirituality, nobody stopped to ask—wait, is this actually good for the philosophy side of things? It felt like such a one-sided approach, and honestly, saying it was a smart move kind of ignores the philosophy aspect entirely. I was just sharing my own take in response—as someone who hangs out in the philosophy section (well, as much as I do since joining this forum)—who doesn't see it as a great move. Of course, people are going to disagree, and this is just how I see it.
In this comment, Benjamin Long, you’re presenting your opinion on why this was beneficial for philosophy, but back then—and even now—that wasn't really the issue at hand. No one was looking for a solution for philosophy because philosophy wasn't the problem; spirituality was. To claim now that it was a good move for spirituality still leaves philosophy out of the equation, just like before, because that wasn't the question being asked—spirituality wasn't moved over to philosophy just to save philosophy, but to address spirituality. Later on, we can all debate how it impacted the philosophy section, where you share your vision, others share theirs, and I share mine.
I don't consider myself a "landlord" in any legal sense, if that's what you were getting at with your question or Donna Corleone's remark; I was just referring to the space itself—the philosophy subforum—which was basically an afterthought in this whole spirituality saga; I mean, nobody was even talking about philosophy during that whole ordeal.

steelridge58 said:But the real question is whether that move actually benefited philosophy itself? That’s the absurd part of this whole situation—it’s like someone deciding to move into an apartment without ever asking the landlord if they even wanted a new tenant in the first place.
Even now, when people say it was a good move for spirituality, they aren't really stopping to consider if it was good for philosophy; and frankly, that exact attitude—just ignoring what philosophy actually needs or wants—is precisely what caused spirituality to drift into the philosophy section in the first place.

I mean, how much weight can you really give to dozens of these pious posts popping up in philosophy forums? It seems like people are increasingly leaning on "divine commandments" as if they were legitimate philosophical arguments. It’s a trend that feels almost perfectly synced up with the way spirituality is migrating over into philosophy spaces. 🙄

@ steelridge58, you claim that philosophy wasn't an issue—or rather, that philosophy itself didn't face any issues—but I simply cannot agree! I firmly believe that philosophy faced, and continues to face, the exact problem I outlined in my previous post. Let me reiterate: the core issue with this philosophy is its overly aestheticized and formalistic approach to thought (which, quite frankly, is why the Alim was moved).
The whole point of philosophical thought isn't to be pleasant, beautiful, symmetrical, harmonious, or "cute." Such notions were surpassed and dismantled long ago by various avant-garde and neo-avant-garde movements, yet it seems they still linger around here.
That is precisely why I think it is a wonderful thing that spirituality (whatever its nature may be) has been relocated right there. If it is even remotely possible, it might just shatter that forced, old-fashioned, primitive, and overly polished concept currently present in philosophy.

Benjamin Long said:@ steelridge58, you claim that philosophy wasn't an issue—or rather, that philosophy itself didn't face any issues—but I simply cannot agree! I firmly believe that philosophy faced, and continues to face, the exact problem I outlined in my previous post. Let me reiterate: the core issue with this philosophy is its overly aestheticized and formalistic approach to thought (which, quite frankly, is why the Alim was moved).
The whole point of philosophical thought isn't to be pleasant, beautiful, symmetrical, harmonious, or "cute." Such notions were surpassed and dismantled long ago by various avant-garde and neo-avant-garde movements, yet it seems they still linger around here.
That is precisely why I think it is a wonderful thing that spirituality (whatever its nature may be) has been relocated right there. If it is even remotely possible, it might just shatter that forced, old-fashioned, primitive, and overly polished concept currently present in philosophy.

Benjamin Long, I am talking about something very specific here: the actual reasons why we shifted spirituality over to philosophy. It wasn't that philosophy itself was broken or causing some crisis that forced this move; if anything, it was the exact opposite. The thinking back then was that moving things would solve the issues facing spirituality. You seem to be taking that core issue and trying to pin it on philosophy instead. But I have to say, it feels a little unfair to introduce philosophy's supposed problems now as if they were the driving force behind the decision, especially since nobody was even considering them at the moment the choice regarding spirituality was actually made.
Looking back later and judging whether the whole thing worked out by looking at the success of one group or the other is just retroactive analysis from where we stand today, but my point is simply that there was no debate about a "philosophy problem" happening at the time. If there had been, then we could actually discuss the necessity of transferring everything to philosophy (exactly like you're suggesting right now) and weigh whether that move was a success or a failure.
If that had been the case, I would have reacted quite differently to the idea that it was a "good move," assuming the goal was to fix philosophy. But it wasn't. Philosophy and that specific group weren't even part of the conversation because there was absolutely no reason to bring them up.
To me, ignoring what philosophy needed back then can't really be justified just by calling it a "smart move for spirituality." By bringing up philosophical problems now—problems that this move might conveniently help solve—you're basically creating justifications after the fact that simply weren't guiding the decision when it happened.

steelridge58, I am afraid there has been a misunder ndstanding between us.
I am not shifting the focus from spirituality to philosophy; rather, I am highlighting the issue regarding the Philosophy PDF. It has become significantly more prominent than the connection to spirituality—which I actually view as a positive development, since it has amplified the symptoms pointing toward the flaw in the Philosophy PDF. However, you seem to be diverting attention away from that specific issue! Does this mean you haven't noticed the problem, are you choosing to ignore it, are you simply avoiding the hassle of dealing with it, or perhaps I am the one who is mistaken?

Benjamin Long said:steelridge58, I am afraid there has been a misunder ndstanding between us.
I am not shifting the focus from spirituality to philosophy; rather, I am highlighting the issue regarding the Philosophy PDF. It has become significantly more prominent than the connection to spirituality—which I actually view as a positive development, since it has amplified the symptoms pointing toward the flaw in the Philosophy PDF. However, you seem to be diverting attention away from that specific issue! Does this mean you haven't noticed the problem, are you choosing to ignore it, are you simply avoiding the hassle of dealing with it, or perhaps I am the one who is mistaken?

I definitely see the issue with the philosophy side of things, mainly because it's become the primary area where I find myself getting tangled up in all the back-and-forth bickering and mediated arguments.
I’ve been watching the pulse of these philosophy threads as someone deeply embedded in them, and I've noticed a real shift in how people approach certain topics; they’ve increasingly turned into battlegrounds for petty disputes rather than meaningful discussion, which has created a massive hurdle for genuine communication and basic tolerance. It really comes down to whether people are willing to be a little harder on themselves and actually embrace open dialogue—something that, quite frankly, would make communicating with the moderators a whole lot easier if everyone just showed a little more openness or a willingness to actually talk things through.
At the end of the day, you just can't have healthy communication unless every single person involved is genuinely committed to sitting down and trying to resolve an issue in a way that actually works for everyone.

steelridge58 said:I definitely see the issue with the philosophy side of things, mainly because it's become the primary area where I find myself getting tangled up in all the back-and-forth bickering and mediated arguments.
I’ve been watching the pulse of these philosophy threads as someone deeply embedded in them, and I've noticed a real shift in how people approach certain topics; they’ve increasingly turned into battlegrounds for petty disputes rather than meaningful discussion, which has created a massive hurdle for genuine communication and basic tolerance. It really comes down to whether people are willing to be a little harder on themselves and actually embrace open dialogue—something that, quite frankly, would make communicating with the moderators a whole lot easier if everyone just showed a little more openness or a willingness to actually talk things through.
At the end of the day, you just can't have healthy communication unless every single person involved is genuinely committed to sitting down and trying to resolve an issue in a way that actually works for everyone.

Precisely!
And if that isn't the case, then we must ask ourselves this:

Benjamin Long said:@ steelridge58, you claim that philosophy wasn't an issue—or rather, that philosophy itself didn't face any issues—but I simply cannot agree! I firmly believe that philosophy faced, and continues to face, the exact problem I outlined in my previous post. Let me reiterate: the core issue with this philosophy is its overly aestheticized and formalistic approach to thought (which, quite frankly, is why the Alim was moved).
The whole point of philosophical thought isn't to be pleasant, beautiful, symmetrical, harmonious, or "cute." Such notions were surpassed and dismantled long ago by various avant-garde and neo-avant-garde movements, yet it seems they still linger around here.
That is precisely why I think it is a wonderful thing that spirituality (whatever its nature may be) has been relocated right there. If it is even remotely possible, it might just shatter that forced, old-fashioned, primitive, and overly polished concept currently present in philosophy.

...so why on earth is Alim's topic posted under Spirituality instead of Philosophy?

@ steeleagle13 and Helel, last warning regarding off-topic posts—I really don't want to spend my entire evening cleaning up after you two.

@ Enchantress - thanks 🙂

@ Donna 😂

@ normall - look, I’m gonna have to ask you to change that avatar. Violence just doesn't fit the vibe we're going for here—and before you jump in asking why we can't include violence, let's start with ourselves; if we change, maybe the world around us will follow suit.

I’m a fan of public polls, and most of mine will stay that way. We’re all hiding behind nicknames here, anyway—and honestly, if someone is too afraid to stand by their opinion even behind a screen, what are they even doing in a community focused on spirituality?

@ Benjamin Long, I still maintain you have no business critiquing the state of the philosophy or spirituality forums—especially not the moderators, who have put in thousands of times more work to make these spaces decent. If I'm wrong, please, enlighten me with your actual contributions to those boards (you know, specific threads you started or solid essays/debates you led).

@ I agree with steelridge58 that nobody actually asked the philosophers if they wanted spirituality shoved into their space. On the flip side, in that poll with the massive turnout, the spiritual crowd voted for independence—which is what I think would be best—but that was basically ignored.
At the end of the day, I couldn't care less where the spirituality section is "physically" located. As long as it’s one click away, it’s fine. What matters is who is writing the content and how they do it.

Up until a few months ago, philosophy was my gold standard—the perfect forum, perfectly moderated. Good people, good conversations—even when things got heated.
Spirituality was pretty much okay, too. steelridge58, remind me again what the actual issue was with the old spirituality board (aside from the lack of a permanent moderator)?
Then the "yellows" showed up and chased off the "reds." One guy with a mission ended up pulling a few others down with him; one argument led to another, and before long, nobody knew who was running the show. Unfortunately, that same guy—using the exact same tactics—came back to shake things up in philosophy, too (exactly what Alexis seems to be rooting for). Threads became personal, petty, non-philosophical, and just plain mundane. It kind of wrecked the philosophy board.
In my opinion, the spirituality forum was torn apart out of the best intentions. When everything moved, topics were shuffled and "sold off." Things that naturally belonged together were scattered across the internet.

That’s just my take on how things went down, and I might be wrong. But regardless, it’s in the past. Here we are now—the spiritual folks over at spirituality, the thinkers at philosophy, and all of us together with two goals: to learn something and have a good time.
So, it’s on all of us to make sure this place stays decent for everyone.

casualtiger2 said:@ steeleagle13 and Helel, last warning regarding off-topic posts—I really don't want to spend my entire evening cleaning up after you two.

@ Enchantress - thanks 🙂

@ Donna 😂

@ normall - look, I’m gonna have to ask you to change that avatar. Violence just doesn't fit the vibe we're going for here—and before you jump in asking why we can't include violence, let's start with ourselves; if we change, maybe the world around us will follow suit.

I’m a fan of public polls, and most of mine will stay that way. We’re all hiding behind nicknames here, anyway—and honestly, if someone is too afraid to stand by their opinion even behind a screen, what are they even doing in a community focused on spirituality?

@ Benjamin Long, I still maintain you have no business critiquing the state of the philosophy or spirituality forums—especially not the moderators, who have put in thousands of times more work to make these spaces decent. If I'm wrong, please, enlighten me with your actual contributions to those boards (you know, specific threads you started or solid essays/debates you led).

@ I agree with steelridge58 that nobody actually asked the philosophers if they wanted spirituality shoved into their space. On the flip side, in that poll with the massive turnout, the spiritual crowd voted for independence—which is what I think would be best—but that was basically ignored.
At the end of the day, I couldn't care less where the spirituality section is "physically" located. As long as it’s one click away, it’s fine. What matters is who is writing the content and how they do it.

Up until a few months ago, philosophy was my gold standard—the perfect forum, perfectly moderated. Good people, good conversations—even when things got heated.
Spirituality was pretty much okay, too. steelridge58, remind me again what the actual issue was with the old spirituality board (aside from the lack of a permanent moderator)?
Then the "yellows" showed up and chased off the "reds." One guy with a mission ended up pulling a few others down with him; one argument led to another, and before long, nobody knew who was running the show. Unfortunately, that same guy—using the exact same tactics—came back to shake things up in philosophy, too (exactly what Alexis seems to be rooting for). Threads became personal, petty, non-philosophical, and just plain mundane. It kind of wrecked the philosophy board.
In my opinion, the spirituality forum was torn apart out of the best intentions. When everything moved, topics were shuffled and "sold off." Things that naturally belonged together were scattered across the internet.

That’s just my take on how things went down, and I might be wrong. But regardless, it’s in the past. Here we are now—the spiritual folks over at spirituality, the thinkers at philosophy, and all of us together with two goals: to learn something and have a good time.
So, it’s on all of us to make sure this place stays decent for everyone.

Hey everyone!

Personally, I find myself in disagreement with every single one of Benjamin Long's opinions; however, I believe he possesses the absolute right to critique anything, including this very forum. We live in a free democratic nation where our laws and Constitution are not violated simply because opinions and criticisms are voiced publicly.

Based on your current attitude, I can already tell that I will no longer be frequenting this sub-forum.

To me, this whole situation reeks of autocracy.

It is unfortunate, but I find your conduct distasteful. As a moderator, you ought to be serving the community of users, yet you seem to have convinced yourself that you are some sort of enlightened prophet.

casualtiger2 said:@ steeleagle13 and Helel, last warning regarding off-topic posts—I really don't want to spend my entire evening cleaning up after you two.

@ Enchantress - thanks 🙂

@ Donna 😂

@ normall - look, I’m gonna have to ask you to change that avatar. Violence just doesn't fit the vibe we're going for here—and before you jump in asking why we can't include violence, let's start with ourselves; if we change, maybe the world around us will follow suit.

I’m a fan of public polls, and most of mine will stay that way. We’re all hiding behind nicknames here, anyway—and honestly, if someone is too afraid to stand by their opinion even behind a screen, what are they even doing in a community focused on spirituality?

@ Benjamin Long, I still maintain you have no business critiquing the state of the philosophy or spirituality forums—especially not the moderators, who have put in thousands of times more work to make these spaces decent. If I'm wrong, please, enlighten me with your actual contributions to those boards (you know, specific threads you started or solid essays/debates you led).

@ I agree with steelridge58 that nobody actually asked the philosophers if they wanted spirituality shoved into their space. On the flip side, in that poll with the massive turnout, the spiritual crowd voted for independence—which is what I think would be best—but that was basically ignored.
At the end of the day, I couldn't care less where the spirituality section is "physically" located. As long as it’s one click away, it’s fine. What matters is who is writing the content and how they do it.

Up until a few months ago, philosophy was my gold standard—the perfect forum, perfectly moderated. Good people, good conversations—even when things got heated.
Spirituality was pretty much okay, too. steelridge58, remind me again what the actual issue was with the old spirituality board (aside from the lack of a permanent moderator)?
Then the "yellows" showed up and chased off the "reds." One guy with a mission ended up pulling a few others down with him; one argument led to another, and before long, nobody knew who was running the show. Unfortunately, that same guy—using the exact same tactics—came back to shake things up in philosophy, too (exactly what Alexis seems to be rooting for). Threads became personal, petty, non-philosophical, and just plain mundane. It kind of wrecked the philosophy board.
In my opinion, the spirituality forum was torn apart out of the best intentions. When everything moved, topics were shuffled and "sold off." Things that naturally belonged together were scattered across the internet.

That’s just my take on how things went down, and I might be wrong. But regardless, it’s in the past. Here we are now—the spiritual folks over at spirituality, the thinkers at philosophy, and all of us together with two goals: to learn something and have a good time.
So, it’s on all of us to make sure this place stays decent for everyone.

How the hell is this allowed? How can a post from normal stay up when he’s clearly being violent toward another user?🙄

I have to admit, casualtiger2, you’d make quite the politician. :klap:

As for those jabs at the liberals and conservatives over on Philosophy, I’d suggest you hold back on comments like that moving forward. They can easily be taken the wrong way—especially that bit about certain "reds" bringing up nothing but mundane, everyday topics.

And look, your take on the state of the Philosophy board is just that: your take. The underlying issues there run much deeper than you’re willing to see. Don't judge others, and they won't judge you.

If your goal is to drive away the leftists because you think they aren't "spiritual" enough, you might want to consider that people experience spirituality, intelligence, and beauty in vastly different ways. This is an open forum; we can all post wherever we please. Or are we supposed to ask the moderators for permission first to prove we're "qualified" enough to speak? 🤔

You certainly made quite an entrance, though. 👍

Jonathan Brooks8 said:If a forum dedicated to spirituality wants to be truly high-quality, it needs to be filled with spirit—it’s like any vessel, really; if it's full of spirit, people can draw from it, and that act of drawing is itself an act of renewal and further giving. Honestly, there isn't any other recipe...

Beautifully put, though there is one catch.
Pretty much everyone agrees that the spirit is something the rational mind just can't grasp—something that transcends thought. It’s that thing we sense in certain people, or feel within ourselves as a profound state of peace, stillness, love, unity, clarity, awareness, fulfillment, and high energy... basically, something untranslatable.
That’s why so many mystics ended up writing in paradoxes—using the language of lovers, metaphors, and analogies.

The bottom line is that words and thoughts fall short when trying to describe spirituality (let alone live it).
And on a forum, we really only have those tools (besides emojis).
So what are we left with? Should we try writing like mystics? Or just shut up?

@ My take on those questions.
Let's try, as best we can, to use our intellect—through our thoughts and words—to reflect the highest parts of ourselves: good will, intention, a pure heart, and clarity...
Because in the spirituality I’m (trying to) follow, there isn't a single level where spirituality doesn't show up—even though most people usually only focus on the "highest" tier.
So, let's see if we can figure out together how to let the spirit shine through most brilliantly at the level of thought.

hiddenhound3 said:Hey everyone!

Personally, I find myself in disagreement with every single one of Benjamin Long's opinions; however, I believe he possesses the absolute right to critique anything, including this very forum. We live in a free democratic nation where our laws and Constitution are not violated simply because opinions and criticisms are voiced publicly.

Based on your current attitude, I can already tell that I will no longer be frequenting this sub-forum.

To me, this whole situation reeks of autocracy.

It is unfortunate, but I find your conduct distasteful. As a moderator, you ought to be serving the community of users, yet you seem to have convinced yourself that you are some sort of enlightened prophet.

Look, Florin, it seems like that's exactly his goal—to handpick a little group that fits his agenda. If you don't fit in, you're out. Plus, he thinks he has the right to insult people and pass judgment on individuals he doesn't even know. He's the perfect moderator for the Spirituality section.

hiddenhound3 said:Hey everyone!

Personally, I find myself in disagreement with every single one of Benjamin Long's opinions; however, I believe he possesses the absolute right to critique anything, including this very forum. We live in a free democratic nation where our laws and Constitution are not violated simply because opinions and criticisms are voiced publicly.

Based on your current attitude, I can already tell that I will no longer be frequenting this sub-forum.

To me, this whole situation reeks of autocracy.

It is unfortunate, but I find your conduct distasteful. As a moderator, you ought to be serving the community of users, yet you seem to have convinced yourself that you are some sort of enlightened prophet.

Of course she can criticize anyone or anything. It’s not my job to defend her.
But then, why am I not allowed to criticize her criticism?
And why can't I just say her critique isn't relevant to me?

Florin, why don't I have the same rights in this situation?!

I still believe what I'm doing is for the benefit of the forum members. Most of them, anyway.😉 😍
PS
Sorry, but I'm not exactly a fan of yours either.

Sean Cruz said:Look, Florin, it seems like that's exactly his goal—to handpick a little group that fits his agenda. If you don't fit in, you're out. Plus, he thinks he has the right to insult people and pass judgment on individuals he doesn't even know. He's the perfect moderator for the Spirituality section.

Well, you pretty much nailed my intentions. 😬
I’m not kicking anyone off this forum.
Maybe a few people might leave on their own once they realize there aren't enough gladiator matches, tears, or blood (aka arguments) to go around.
Sure, having one solid, large group of decent forum members wouldn't be a bad thing. And they don't have to "fit" me—meaning they don't need to think or feel exactly like I do. But they do need to respect the space enough to make this place worthy of the name spirituality. Among the people I actually respect, there are plenty who hold views completely opposite to mine on just about everything.

You claim, for instance, that I insulted someone. On what basis are you making that claim?
Nobody here actually knows anyone, yet everyone is busy judging everyone else. You, Florin, and Alexis are the worst offenders (and you mostly just claim everyone else is a negative influence; weirdly, it's usually the moderators, who were apparently chosen for some reason to be in those roles?!).
What are your actual intentions here? Are you here to write about spirituality, or are you just waiting to jump at the moderators every time a topic doesn't go your way (trying to get certain threads banned while pushing others... which will happen anyway, just maybe not according to your "concept").
PS
For the record, I don't know much about the other users, just like they don't know much about me.
But I do know that Alexis hasn't started a single thread—not in philosophy, not in spirituality. And that’s not me judging her character, just her activity as a user. It’s definitely not an insult.

casualtiger2 said:Of course she can criticize anyone or anything. It’s not my job to defend her.
But then, why am I not allowed to criticize her criticism?
And why can't I just say her critique isn't relevant to me?

Florin, why don't I have the same rights in this situation?!

I still believe what I'm doing is for the benefit of the forum members. Most of them, anyway.😉 😍
PS
Sorry, but I'm not exactly a fan of yours either.

No, you are acting out of a deep-seated need for control—a complex, if you will. To quote your own sentiment: 'YOU believe she lacks the right'..

She certainly possesses the right; she holds every right afforded by the law, our community guidelines, and her own personal perspective. You have no authority to dictate to her what rights she does or does not possess, as if you were an officer making an arrest.

It is almost as though you believe your opinion carries any weight at all. ☕

Man, why do you even care, casualtiger2? As long as you're kicking butt and feeling good, that's all that matters. 😁

Benjamin Long said:Precisely!
And if that isn't the case, then we must ask ourselves this:

...so why on earth is Alim's topic posted under Spirituality instead of Philosophy?

I actually anticipated this question coming up, so I’ll try to give an answer here, and hopefully, it’ll be a satisfying one for everyone else who's wondering about the same thing.
It honestly felt like there just wasn't any willingness on Ali's part to actually communicate, because... well, it seemed to me like he wanted to punish us for even touching upon his topic in the first place, especially since we dared to offer some suggestions—which were really just suggestions—leaving it up to him to weigh in and decide how he wanted things handled. He didn't want to talk, and I interpret his silence as a choice, which should also serve as a little lesson (I think I know what you meant by teaching responsibility, Ali...) ...regarding responsibility, though it simultaneously meant that the responsibility for how the "Healthy Living" thread turned out rested squarely on Ali himself, simply because he refused to clarify what he actually wanted. He completely ignored me, likely proportional to the amount of responsibility he thought I held—which I felt myself, given that I stepped in at all—while he actually insulted the other moderator.

So, if we assume that we had every right to engage with the subject of that thread, just like any other thread in Philosophy, offering suggestions rather than making demands—options which Ali could have chosen to keep the thread in Philosophy, whether unmoderated or moderated according to his preference—then let's also assume that this question—“why was Ali's thread moved to Spirituality instead of Philosophy?”—isn't just some arbitrary, unilateral decision made by the moderators.

The poll exists because it ignores everything I just laid out above, and to the public, it just creates this impression that the moderators are being arbitrary and intolerant.
Personally, I feel a bit bad for getting tangled up in this whole mess, but by pure coincidence—I did, or perhaps things on that thread just reached a breaking point that raised these questions while also offering a chance for a compromise that wouldn't hurt the original author or those of us who wanted it to stay in Philosophy.
For my part, I supported the suggestion to move the shaman's threads over to spirituality once Ali failed to respond, which would have allowed for a different outcome altogether.

Benjamin Long said:Precisely!
And if that isn't the case, then we must ask ourselves this:

...so why on earth is Alim's topic posted under Spirituality instead of Philosophy?

I hope the reasoning is a bit clearer now.

casualtiger2 said:Well, you pretty much nailed my intentions. 😬
I’m not kicking anyone off this forum.
Maybe a few people might leave on their own once they realize there aren't enough gladiator matches, tears, or blood (aka arguments) to go around.
Sure, having one solid, large group of decent forum members wouldn't be a bad thing. And they don't have to "fit" me—meaning they don't need to think or feel exactly like I do. But they do need to respect the space enough to make this place worthy of the name spirituality. Among the people I actually respect, there are plenty who hold views completely opposite to mine on just about everything.

You claim, for instance, that I insulted someone. On what basis are you making that claim?
Nobody here actually knows anyone, yet everyone is busy judging everyone else. You, Florin, and Alexis are the worst offenders (and you mostly just claim everyone else is a negative influence; weirdly, it's usually the moderators, who were apparently chosen for some reason to be in those roles?!).
What are your actual intentions here? Are you here to write about spirituality, or are you just waiting to jump at the moderators every time a topic doesn't go your way (trying to get certain threads banned while pushing others... which will happen anyway, just maybe not according to your "concept").
PS
For the record, I don't know much about the other users, just like they don't know much about me.
But I do know that Alexis hasn't started a single thread—not in philosophy, not in spirituality. And that’s not me judging her character, just her activity as a user. It’s definitely not an insult.

You conveniently skipped over my last post, which says quite a bit about you. Yes, you’ve certainly given yourself permission to pass judgment. What do you actually know about me? Do I belong to that group of radicals who pushed out the moderates, or as we say back in Boston, did the wolves come in and drive out the sheep? Who are you to judge me? Does my advocacy for a specific topic give you that right? And now Florin is criticizing the moderators?😂 Well, as far as I can tell, you're the first person Florin has ever addressed this way.
And exactly which "spiritual" topics am I supposed to write about? The ones promoting drugs or your little cult?
Get real, man. Being a moderator doesn't make you a god.

casualtiger2 said:Well, you pretty much nailed my intentions. 😬
I’m not kicking anyone off this forum.
Maybe a few people might leave on their own once they realize there aren't enough gladiator matches, tears, or blood (aka arguments) to go around.
Sure, having one solid, large group of decent forum members wouldn't be a bad thing. And they don't have to "fit" me—meaning they don't need to think or feel exactly like I do. But they do need to respect the space enough to make this place worthy of the name spirituality. Among the people I actually respect, there are plenty who hold views completely opposite to mine on just about everything.

You claim, for instance, that I insulted someone. On what basis are you making that claim?
Nobody here actually knows anyone, yet everyone is busy judging everyone else. You, Florin, and Alexis are the worst offenders (and you mostly just claim everyone else is a negative influence; weirdly, it's usually the moderators, who were apparently chosen for some reason to be in those roles?!).
What are your actual intentions here? Are you here to write about spirituality, or are you just waiting to jump at the moderators every time a topic doesn't go your way (trying to get certain threads banned while pushing others... which will happen anyway, just maybe not according to your "concept").
PS
For the record, I don't know much about the other users, just like they don't know much about me.
But I do know that Alexis hasn't started a single thread—not in philosophy, not in spirituality. And that’s not me judging her character, just her activity as a user. It’s definitely not an insult.

Look, you're just talking nonsense. I actually know at least three people from this sub-forum in real life, and I haven't had a single disagreement with anyone, nor do I view any of them negatively. Now, you're attempting to attribute thoughts to me that have never once crossed my mind.😕

What is wrong with you...?