I won't reply, now that I've read it.
...Wouldn't want to be accused of 'putting a spotlight' on your 'logic' (n the very loosest term) now would I ?
I might get sanctioned.
When discussion stops, force starts.
When discussion not open, it is censored. Then it stops..... then force begins.
....the mind boggles.
have you been hanging out with this guy?
...leave my friends alone !
I don't think that would happen between the two of us or between me and another person I have a conversation with online.
I wouldn't spotlight you personally for something on my blog page that annoyed me about you or from someone I had a conflict with in my offline life. What do you want people to respond to? That I am right or wrong? Well, that's what would happen, wouldn't it, if I did that, listing things that I felt some other person had done wrong to me. HaHa, thats what they do. Do you like it?
I mean, you could basically take anyone here and find anything that could be considered detrimental.
Secondly, I am doing exactly what you advocate, I am discussing with you in the open. I have no power at all over whether you censor yourself or not, whether you want to react or not. Just as you have no power over me, even if you were to put me in the spotlight and give me a bad name, for example, based on the fact that I treat my plants or cats badly or something like that. I just wouldn't jump at that.
I think I've had conversations with you to an extent that makes me somewhat appreciate that in many ways we're hardly impressed with the way people talk about bullying here. Between you and me, the issue seems clear to me. You couldn't bull me at all, even if you tried by all means. It would be irrelevant, we don't even live in the same country, we don't know the same people, you don't know where and with whom exactly I've worked etc. etc.
It would be nice if everyone saw it that way, wouldn't it? I mean, I know you can't hurt me and I can't hurt you.
But as you can see, not everyone thinks that way. People run to others when they "feel wrongly treated" on the internet and state their case. They want protectorate or flattery, they want, if they don't feel satisfaction, to win morally, etc. Then you get responses from people with influence that you didn't ask for and is basically none of their business. But then they make it their business. Because apparently everyone is calling for it?
I once heard a good saying that I consider wise: only offer people as much food as they can take.
So I take you at your word when you say that you can take a lot of food. With others, where I do not receive such statements, it would not be worth the effort for me, because they do not give space (directly or indirectly) to openly disagree with them. Where I perceive that contradiction is not welcome, I eventually withdraw because "too much food". I cannot make anyone eat what they don't want to eat.
I care for exactly those ones, I am having present direct conversations with. If I discuss with you and one of us stops, it's just that. End of communication and nothing else. Which might be taken up again eventually or not. No forces needed.